510 thoughts on “A Red Pill Perspective On The Existence Of God”

1. Let me ask you a question?
   What morals do we need religion for? Killing gays? Burning witches? Stoning unruly children? Killing your enemies and raping their women?
   Why can’t we have the same morals and traditions without religion? Why is everything good God’s doing but everything bad isn’t God’s fault? Isn’t is all in his divine plan?
   Fuck Yahweh, fuck Jesus, fuck Mohammad, and fuck religion.

   1. In reality the atheist kids are Marxist, pro-muslim, pro-big government cocksuckers. They’re not rational at all. Communism becomes their religion.
      I can’t help but notice the ‘rational atheists’ are the same ones wanting government to grab more power in our lives and some compulsive drive to flood our country with muslims.
      Look at Sweden. They’re atheist and probably relatively high-IQ Nordic population, yet they are suicidal and insane.

      1. So atheists who reject the claim of a magical sky daddy because of lack of evidence aren’t rational?

         1. I’m saying atheism seems to be correlated to a lot of other stupid behaviors that result in their nation / group getting conquered by a group who is religious (muslims). Atheists seem unable to recognize the threat of Islam.

         2. Christianity along with pretty much every other religion on the planet can be correlated with some pretty stupid behavior as well.

         3. I’m an atheist. It’s partly because I am that I recognize Islam as a threat. I’m also a lover of capitalism.

         4. All muslim countries are dysfunctional shitholes. Christian nations have created a shitload of progress in the world. Even with their faults, Christian-founded nations like USA have the scoreboard heavily on their side.

         5. Then you’re an honest atheist. There are some true atheists, who disbelieve based not on what some professor or TA told them, but based on their own intellect. I respect them. They also show the same trait you do, they’re not “anti-Christian”, they simply don’t believe in *any* religion. There sir, is a huge difference. Most “atheists” just hate Christianity.

         6. As can atheism, which is also a faith based ideology.

         7. I agree, I don’t hate any religion unless followers of that faith claim dominion over my life. Looking around the world it’s easy to see that the threat does not come from Christianity, is unlikely to.

         8. Atheism is the rejection of the claim of a God. There are stupid Christians and there are stupid Muslims and atheists.
            Stupidity knows no creed or color.

         9. Ghost
            How is “I don’t believe you” faith-based?????

      2. Marx even says in the manifesto that the reason they are atheistic is so that the state will replace God in their eyes

         1. WHy don’t atheists just admit they don’t like religous people, want to be gay or something so they don’t like God, regardles of all the evidence and philosophy that supports biblical theology?

         2. I’m not even necessarily against this notion of living for empire as first principle.
            But if what I’ve seen from the left is representative of Marxist thought, than count me out. I wish only to serve under a virtuous leader of free men. I’m not holding my breath though…
            And if Trump does turn out to be nothing more than a demagogue, it will only prove to me how intoxicating it truly is to believe that one is part of something bigger than oneself…

         3. What evidence do you think supports God? Aurelius moner always said it was ‘self evident’ of a creator.

         4. But empire’s are man made and therefore eventually fall. Roman, Persian, Japanese empires, all once great and now mere shadows of themselves. I feel the purpose of a god or gods is to give you something eternal to belong too and a set of morals and laws that do not vary from leader to leader.

         5. I’ve always had a problem with the Christian apologetic, of jumping from,
            1. I now believe in a god or theism in general, to..
            2. Christianity has to be the correct one.

         6. There’s no way logic can prove or disprove God. Every proof of either can be disproven and so on. That tells me that either the question is nonsense or we’re not smart enough to figure it out. I vote for the nonsense explanation though I doubt humans are capable of understanding everything.

         7. It could be that god takes whatever form you perceive him/her to be. I say her because sometimes I think only a female could make something as twisted as a human being haha

         8. Yeah I agree and that is definitely a strength of religion… The core ideas/stories remain the same through generations.
            I’m just saying I think empire can serve the same function as religion to some extent. To give one a sense of belonging to something greater than oneself. To give meaning to one’s character and virtues. To offer emotional truths. To aid in family and community formation and longevity.
            The Roman empire lasted for 500 years, whereas Christianity has lasted for 2016 and counting (although I’m not sure where it’s headed… if anywhere)… so you certainly have a point.

         9. Agreed, were there something like the roman empire today or even early in america’s history I would die without any regret after participating in action that brought Glory to it.

         10. None. Nothing. There is no evidence.
             I believe in God based on Faith alone. Nothing more, nothing less.
             Can you say the same about science and its creation myths?

         11. Exactly.

         12. I agree so much of science is unknown, it is also a similar ‘faith’. But how can a God punish or reward you eternally for what your mind chooses to believe? Why punish someone for not believing in something that seems logically incomprehensible?

         13. Because you’ve been given a brief glimpse of the Word. What you choose to believe from that point is up to you.
             The “how” is based on free will. You are a free agent, a fully sentient being in the world. If a father can spank your ass for believing (and acting) on the belief that you can steal, why can’t God?

         14. Really don’t believe in the concept of heaven or hell. Always seems to have been an add on to the faith, at least how it’s now thought of. Heaven or hell is a choice to make every day. My hell would be on my death bed knowing I could of been a better man, done more, then I had. That would be hell for me. But may be that’s my Viking blood speaking through me. Heaven is only for the brave.

         15. Exactly!

   2. What, you like faggots and witches? you CANNOT have morals without some place where they come from, God makes your earthly wisdom a joke, you don’t think plenty of serial killers enjoy killing you more than you might enjoy your life? that’s their subjective morality, what is true is OBJECTIVE. No evidence for God? what is evidence to you? naive empiricism and materialism? science? all make metaphysical claims all the time, using metaphysical math to justify morally bankrupt materialistic philosophies, when man gets away from a patriarchal, functional God, you end up with feminism, homosexuality, and the like, you cannot defend ethics if you have no place to get them from. Also, the twentieth century is a secular century, and yet saw the biggest wars, get with the program and off your self-rightous ass.

      1. You know if you want to take a crack at your rebuttal again, nobody would look down on you. You may want to gloss over the part about Christianity being the standard of morality though. Pretty sure the manual for Christianity condones things like selling my daughter into slavery and stoning my mom for wearing garments of two different threads or just setting fire to my brother for running his farm on a Sunday.
         Also, you may want to consider revising that whole “biggest wars” routine. Pretty sure the million or so people slaughtered during the Crusades may have a thing or two to say about that.

         1. The first paragraph I will give you. But as for the war part…consider 1.7 million over 200 years or so for the crusades and then consider 40 million in 4 years for world war 1. WW1 was not religiously driven but purely resource and land driven. Also consider that science was the main contributing factor to such a high death toll and it was passed off as ok because it was deemed “the most efficient way of killing”

         2. The laws of the Old Testament were designed to distinguish Israel as a distinct nation. Considering that the Israelites have maintained their culture for several millenia, I would argue that the laws worked. However there was no inherent good in the action, the good was derived through their faith. Isaiah 1:11 backs this claim, as Israel had perpetuated the rituals, but did so without the faith of their forefathers.
            Are you really comparing the Crusades to wars that took shape on almost every continent at the cost of hundreds of millions?

         3. Right, the laws that allow you to own slaves, stone your unruly child to death, forcing a woman to marry her rapist, killing raped women for not yelling loud enough, and executing people who: are gay, eat shellfish, or wear mixed fabrics.

      2. Do you have a point or are you just going to babble on?

   3. How about you propose an alternate theory instead of just posing the question? How would moral principles be taught, encouraged, and enforced, if not through religion, or something which would be essentially religion, even if named differently?
      One could also posit, why does every culture, every tribe, every race of humans throughout the planet, have a developed religion or moral code?

      1. My alternate theory is secular humanism.
         How about you answer the fucking questions.

         1. Oh snarkiness and profanity! How cute and original. Here I was thinking we could have an intelligent discussion on the topic of morality. Anyway, I’ll post the following for the benefit of the other readers:
            Religion sprang up of its own accord in every culture throughout society. I suppose one could argue that science has developed to the point where people can see through some of the superstition that is common to many of these beliefs, but nevertheless it has yet to be shown that secular humanism is powerful enough to compel people to follow a code of ethics.
            I’ve told the story before about my heroin addicted janitor in my office. He used to steal $100 a day from honest people to support his drug habit. Then he found Jesus and has the best work ethic you could want in a janitor. He wears Jesus shirts every day and wants to convert everyone he meets.
            If we could get the same results by telling the guy that he is a human and his humanity is really awesome and he needs to stop doing heroin and just be a good guy, and that would work, I would totally be on board with secular humanism. But to me it smacks of the “teach rapists not to rape and you will end rape” fantasy.

2. I’m about half way through Voltaire’s “Philosophical dictionary” and the idea of the existence of God is discussed extensively throughout the book. Alot of what he discusses is common sense, or seems like it should be. I won’t ruin it for you but if you ever like a witty read I would suggest it. God and your relationship with him, or lack of, is up to the person. You can discuss it all day but ultimately it comes down to you reading whatever religious text your belief adheres to and forming your own opinion on the matter and developing a personal relationship with your god. When you die nothing but your beliefs will be there to consul you, remember that.

3. I have tried so many times over these last few years to believe in Christianity, but it never holds up, there are too many questions. Right from from the beginning, with Adam and Eve, it seems obvious to me this is just a story, that has nothing to do with original sin, just another creation story, like them all, and not even as cool some of the others. And if there’s no original sin, there’s no need of Christ.

   1. the original sin is consciousness of self…which grows until it is all that can be seen

      1. Sure, I don’t have a problem with that interpretation, but I have a hard time believing that was what the original intention of the author/Moses had in mind when he wrote it. Because it reads like so many other creations myths.

         1. christianity has suffered a fair bit of flak from that kind of alternative religion approach – just an easter fertility celebration etc. I’m not sure it matters. It’s the core message that matters, not tradition. Whether that adds up – well everyone has to decide for themselves; but sometimes the anti-christian or anti-religious POV ends up caricaturing what it’s railing against. Ultimately, each religion, each belief system will have to live or die on its own merits or lack thereof

         2. “christianity has suffered a fair bit of flak from that kind of alternative religion approach” not quite following here: do you mean my interpretation? I agree, that Christianity is good in general, at least keeping the people somewhat sane, I just can’t believe it intellectually.

         3. you referred to other (similar) creation myths. Actually I meant comparative not alternative, so my fault for using the wrong terminology. Christianity has been dumbed down a lot. It’s had a tough time, but the more sophisticated bunch don’t get bums on seats – they probably come across as more atheist than you for the most part (assuming you’re atheist)

         4. Got yeah, thanks. Yeah I’m not an atheist at all. Just can’t seem to wrap my head around anything humanity seems to say about god.
            It always seems to express a personal reflection of that culture, and time; not really anything divine.

         5. Given as no man can know God’s mind, isn’t this in accord with what should be expected. You can’t understand God, neither can I, nor can anybody.

         6. I’m in total agreement with you there. but most of religion (speaking of my protestant background) acts as if all the theology is figured out; with a little red bow put on top.
            I simply have a hard time buying that.
            And don’t get me wrong, if I had to make a choice, I’d choose it any day over the atheistic/Marxist shit hole we live in.

         7. I can understand that.

         8. No man can know the mind of God (presumably, entirely).
            That said, God did give us some rules. The rules are almost entirely not taught in Christianity any longer. Sadly.
            Protestants, whom I was raised around, never really did it for me. I thought for a while, the late 1980’s, eh, Lutheran. Then they became errant. Then Catholics. I’m left with the Orthodox who seem, honestly, like this giant wall of Goodness against the world.
            I wish I had something better to say. End of the day, better an errant religion than a faithless society.

   2. perhaps you have made a miscalculation in equating your experience and knowledge of Christianity as being authentic- it may not be ( I don’t know your backround)
      I reject the bible-centric fundamentalist approach- the older i get, the more I realize i don’t know or understand. Questions and doubting is a very good thing. embrace it.

      1. Yeah I was raised a protestant, but at least it was a tough one, with no liberal Marxist nonsense. Though I stopped believing in it over five years ago, there’s is always this need for something like that ever sense, but intellectually it just falls flat.
         So yes, the literal interpretation most definitely falls flat to these ears

         1. Have you looked into Russian/Greek Orthodox? They’re a breath of fresh air. Like hard core stuff.

         2. I have not, but i have thought about it more recently, reading everyone replies here over the last year or so.

         3. Orthodox Christianity is not just Russian and Greek and is experiencing a resurgence these days, as the other branches of the church are falling into banality. i converted my self 10 plus years ago. I like it hard core- there is an unearthly beauty to it

         4. As enticement, do a Youtube on their music. They don’t sit for Mass. They do NOT compromise on the role of men in the family. These people mean business.

         5. Right, agreed. Just giving a starting point.

         6. some of the old ethnic congregations are not very inviting to outsiders

         7. Thanks, I will have to check that out.

         8. It’s akin to the old ways. You don’t get happy pastel wearing people welcoming everybody. It takes a bit of work. Usually between you and the priest, not the laity.

         9. A good introduction.
            

         10. Couldn’t care less about it being overly inviting… Anything would beat the fake ass smiley faces of your modern liberal church. heh.

         11. Awe yes.. Civilization. Gratias tibi ago!

         12. That fake ass smiling, and guitars, drove me away like I was being beaten by sticks.

         13. Truth! Though I am a white guy, so maybe I wouldn’t get those wonderful smiles.

         14. Yeah, the same. The Amish rarely smile at strangers though, and are more holy than the rest of humanity except a few.

         15. Always had a soft spot for them, amazing workers to boot. Would say they follow the teachings of Christ more than most, can’t hate them much for that.

         16. And they have an unquestioned patriarchy, true family, true strength and contentedness. God bless the Amish.

         17. Our Goooood is an awesome Gooood we praaaaaise him la la la

   3. Churchofsatan.com

4. Human DNA has 3 billion lines of base pair ‘letters’ which function almost like code telling cells to build your body. That seems like a pretty deliberate creation to me.

   1. It’s also 95% junk DNA which is utterly useless. Pretty shitty creator if you ask me.

      1. So you know how natural selection should work do you?

         1. Do you?
            God, the one you claim, doesn’t. He can’t even heal the sick, much less create anything. Only happens in fairy tales. Get real, bud.

      2. Given the youth of the field of genetics, what do you suppose are the chances are that your “95% junk DNA” figure is wrong, given that scientists can’t even get the function of the appendix right? http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21153898/ns/health-health_care/t/scientists-may-have-found-appendixs-purpose/

         1. What came first: the blood, the heart to pump it, or the blood vessels to carry it?

         2. Furthermore, that percentage is shrinking. We have found that much of that “junk” is coding for certain antibodies, proteins, developmental triggers, etc.

      3. I didn’t know about the junk part. Can you link me something basic about that please? in terms of most of it being pointless and not directing cellular life.

      4. You know that claim is debunked right?
         http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-debunk-junk-dna-theory-to-reveal-vast-majority-of-human-genes-perform-a-vital-function-8106777.html
         The figure of 5% was based on the fact only 5% of the DNA is actually used in making genes and proteins (i.e. something that can be measured directly).
         But much of the DNA is needed for other purposes: how do cells communicate in an organ, how do stem cells decide what they will become, how do different organs communicate, how does a baby know how to drink and shit,…
         There is a lot of stuff in the DNA that can’t be measured or attributed to a specific function directly. But saying it is junk was just a cheap way for evolutionists of winning the argument.

   2. DNA is a code that is read forwards and backwards. Certain codings start not from the beginning, but from specific locations in the sequence and to specific locations in the sequence.
      There is effectively a tiny molecular robot that reads, corrects, and translates DNA.
      The only DNA we have discovered outside its natural setting (the cell) was created by very smart people using very complicate equipment.
      Mankind has created nothing like it in millenia. Its complexity is beyond our current comprehension.
      I’m gonna go with Intelligent Design until someone can definitively prove a mechanism by which this complexity can and does arise naturally.

5. I think the problem here is that you seem to think Christianity is about the individual, when it’s actually about knowing God. You have to realize that God does not owe man anything. He has no obligation to help you with anything. I think the big problem with the Church is that they focus so much on love, that they make people believe that God is at your beck and call like a servant when the opposite should be true for anybody calling themselves a Christian. Francis Chan I think has the most accurate idea of what being a Christian means (even though I am Catholic). As for these mega-churches, it boggles the mind how people could follow somebody whose character is a total mystery to them. As for how I know that Christians have the correct God, ironically, I know because my prayers get answered 90% of the time within a week.

   1. When I fathered my children, I had an obligation to them by my act of fathering them. That doesn’t mean that I cower and bow down to their every request. In fact, I’m quite stern and demand obedience to the house rules. Just like God does of us. If you father a child, you take care of him. God gave us that promise as well.

      1. Then he didn’t take care of the millions of Armenian and Russian Christians who were genocided in the 20th century.

         1. They are adults.
            God did not promise an absence of evil. In fact, the opposite.
            This is a testing ground for your free will. Your soul is grown, now what will your soul do when confronted with challenges?

         2. Nor can a father protect all his children from death. Consider the population of the world. Or maybe he just practices a hands off approach

         3. My son was just across the street from the OSU knife/car killings at the beginning of the week. I raised him to be strong and sure and he did the right thing. That’s how God works, that is, giving you values and then hands off to see how you act and react.

         4. Or His apostles or Himself. And that He explicitly told us it would be that way at the time.

         5. Exactly. Free will, and yes, struggle, is what makes you grow into higher levels of consciousness. And paradoxically, the more you surrender to the fact that you are in charge, the more God gives you proof of His existence. For me it was more a series of crazy synchronistic coincidences that saved me from the worst than an answer to the formal act of prayer, but the pattern is the same.

      2. My father always said that God is not a cosmic vending machine. You don’t insert prayers and punch the “make a miracle happen” button.

      3. I think my own faith was made easier by having a good father. The idea of a being who loved me greatly and demanded of me greatly at the same time wasn’t foreign at all.
         There’s an interesting book called faith of the fatherless it’s all about famous atheists and their absentee or abusive fathers.

      4. Are you raising your children Christian? I believe I would raise mine in the Orthodox church, or something similar.

   2. It’s not so much that they focus too much on love because you borderline can’t. It’s just their version of love is cramped and small without the drama, fear, and bravery of the real thing.

6. whatever happened to aurelius moner.
   vow of silence?

   1. He left his monestary to study to become a priest, so he said he wouldn’t be posting much anymore.

      1. oh, that’s interesting, thanks for the clarification. Hope it works out for him

         1. He was a good egg indeed.

         2. yes he was. Not many like him around these days

         3. One of his articles was the reason I made an account and started following this site way back when

   2. Same question. It’s such a loss, his absence.

      1. yes it is

7. If atheist kids weren’t pro-muslim suicidal Marxists, I might agree they are more rational. But their minds seem to be poisoned and severely lacking in rationality.

   1. Atheism doesn’t do that.
      Stupidity knows no creed or color.

8. Atheist European countries are the ones getting wiped out by muslims.
   ‘Ignorant Christian’ ones like Poland and Hungary will probably be the few that survive eurabia.

   1. Homogeneous faith is a very important part of social and cultural cohesion. Even if one does not personally believe in Christianity, one should realize the implications of its eradication in the public sphere. Agnostics like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson understood this necessity very well.

      1. Not to mention that atheism is used as one of the pillars (feminism, sexual deviance, atheism, etc.) of Marxism seeking to supplant a belief in “higher power” or whatever with a belief in the State.
         Not saying that atheism is Marxist but it has certainly been one of their most useful tools for altering traditional stances and communities.

         1. Atheism isn’t inherently Marxist, it’s only that just like Islam or Christianity, communism seeks to control people with a set of rules. Religions and communism are competitors of each other. Atheism is just the lack of a religion or belief in god(s) but you can also reject communism (which is what I do)

         2. Yeah, that was partly what I was trying to get across.
            It would seem that as a personal philosophy or stance/system neither religion or atheism is inherently negative. I get along with most of either on a one-on-one basis.
            But there is a noticeable division growing among atheists to what might be termed “organized atheism” which suffers all the same pitfalls and faults as “organized religion” seems to. It is in this that I see it as being a useful tool/pillar of Marxism and it was intentionally so on their part.
            As with any growing power/influence it draws its share of the types of person who are most likely to use it for their own vision (i.e.: Marxists) and it has also been helpful in a “the enemy of my enemy” sort of way to help undermine traditional values (not that modern Christianity wasn’t doing a bang up job of that as well). I think the trick is to realize that the concept for both may not actually be at fault for the application.

      2. Agree with this. My personal faith ebbs and flows but even when it’s low (as it has been lately), it still strikes me that, whether I believe them or not, the foundational beliefs, customs and traditions of religion act like an assimilator of people and a cultural glue.
         The reality of religion is that even in a society where people widely identify themselves as belonging to a certain religion, very few of them really commit to learning it and understanding the underlying theology and even fewer live their ostensible faith with any zeal. It’s just a basic agreement on foundational beliefs, some shared customs and a basic ordering of morality. That’s probably good enough for a reasonable sense of social cohesion. Without it though, I think a society is just a fractured mess of competing tribal affiliations of various guises.

   2. Really? What will make Europe wiped out is the desintegration of the EU. Poland is one big mess with a completely incompetent government at the wheel. Their level of corruption and the amount of stupid policies is unprecendented and downright absurd. The country is nothing but united and judging from the look at infrastructure now and 3 years ago, without the EU funds, it would still look like some Russian backwater, where getting off the train means stepping in the mud.
      Poland is a major potential flashpoint – always has been, always will be. Look at their history.
      
      Christianity and traditionalism are not saviors, They are stagnation.
      The desintegration of the EU will doom Poland first and foremost.
      Nationalism so proudly celebrated by many here means one thing…Europe full of wars as was always the case in the past.

      1. “Really? What will make Europe wiped out is the desintegration of the EU”
         Ha! Marxist troll.

         1. How about some hard facts instead of cheap labels? No?
            But don´t worry…you will have your disintegration and nationalism and many other processes of the kind in the not so distant future. The second phase of financial collapse is not so far away and then all the people who are already not so well off will start to feel it for real and Trump in the US and the EU which is not based on lofty ideals but only on the promise of prosperity will be hated with vengeance for failing to deliver its promises and it will fail like other supranational structures to nationalism. The complexity of globalisation will be collapsing worldwide and by that time the global economic crisis will be at full swing and energy sector will be failing and the effects of climate change and immigration of hundreds of millions will follow and then the global carrying capacity will fully fail too and you know the rest, don´t you?
            ….beautiful friend.
            Then we will have the way of men….everywhere.

   3. Couple that with a Christian faith that asks you to turn the other cheek, and you have a recipe for disaster.
      What Europe need is to turn back to its real roots, which incorporated a warrior mentality.

      1. Yes our real roots, worshipping a lump of stone in the woods.

         1. That…or we can worship an invisible spirit living in a gold and pearl city in the sky.

         2. Who routinely reveals Himself and has a church with a sterling intellectual history of 2 millennia.
            Equivocation doesn’t work here.

         3. Same can be said for Zoroaster.
            I admire Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, and Luther. But modern western Christianity is definitely not the same anymore.

         4. It really can’t though. Pound for pound Zoroastrianism is just not a fair comparison is all I’m saying.

      2. You may be misreading the context of that passage. Turning your other cheek refers to personal persecution of Christians by those within your own culture. It is not forbidding defensive violence against criminals and invaders:
         “There is… a time for war and a time for peace.” (Ecclesiastes 3:8)
         “He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” (Luke 22:36)

         1. Its also a challenge to be treated as equal, or for the striker to dishonor himself. The fact Jesus refers to a specific cheek, then another, is pivotal to understanding the passage.

         2. Preist: Jesus rebuked him saying, “those who live by the sword, shall die by the sword.”
            Viking: How is that a rebuke? That’s f##king awesome!

   4. Any chance for Czech Republic?

   5. You mean feminist countries?
      Why do we need religion to be unified? Or protect ourselves and our countries?

   6. Say what you will about patriarchal Christianity, but it WORKS.
      Lex Rex, the law is king, so government is not totally arbitrary. The church teaches morals, but is separate from the government. The world is rational, so scientific laws exist and can be investigated.
      Women in their proper role of contributing babies to society, supporting men, and building up their communities. Respectable men get a wife who will generally remain faithful. Those truly needing help will receive charity, but moochers will starve. Masculinity is encouraged so that wars can be won, but limited enough that there is not violence in the streets.

   7. Or get viciously raped and destroyed by it because much of the rest of Europe are cowards led by the same. I think an extreme form of nationalism has awakened in Europe. Time will tell how successful it will be. The thing is, like last time (30s), it will be another atheistic version. Contrary to atheists claims, the socialist leaders (Mao, Hitler, Stalin) were not believers but extreme atheists. Their desires for religious objects were simple, and straightforward. They merely wanted them to legitimize their rule in the eyes of the people. TO then promptly be destroyed the brainwashed masses that followed after they took said children from their parents. Mentally torturing them into grotesque characters of humanity.

   8. atheism =/= submissiveness.

9. True atheists are as rare as the true liberals. The vast majority of them cannot live without an egocentric belief system akin to mordern Christianity (“God is looking out for me, myself and I!”) like feminism, transgenderism, otherkin, socialism, flamboyant homosexuality or a combination of those.

   1. That was always my criticism of ‘atheists’. That void in their mind is filled with something else, usually idiotic and destructive like feminism, Marxism, etc.

      1. As an atheist, I know many other atheist. Perhaps it’s a thing of my area, but most atheists I know would fit the MGTOW and are quite red-pilled.

      2. “That was always my criticism of ‘atheists’. That void in their mind is filled with something else, usually idiotic and destructive like feminism, Marxism, etc.”
         Not only that, but one has to wonder why there are so many atheists who are hell bent on campaigning against those who believe in God.

         1. I don’t believe in atheists….anti-theists are all I’ve personally met.

      3. I’m an atheist, in the sense that I don’t have faith in a God but even though I said it in the past, I now realise that it would ridiculous to say that I don’t have a belief system. My belief system is The Red Pill and even though it has made me much more rational, I have to admit to I need it on a emotionnal level. TRP helps me make sense of human relations and not get depressed or angry at women or their enablers (beta males) because I believe in a coherent worldview that explains their behaviour. Obviously, some things are wrong or not universally true about TRP but I cannot discard the whole thing because it has helped me more than even my parents did, at least on an intellectual level.

      4. Its always some form of degeneracy.

      5. It’s amazing how the skepticism and inherent cynicism they express towards religion is nowhere to be seen when it comes to a bunch of other questionable bullshit they unquestioningly accept as fact.
         “Man will believe anything he reads, so long as it’s not in The Bible”- Napoleon. Proof that this phenomena has been around long before the dawn of the interwebs…

      6. We are born atheists. The void that has to be filled is created with religion in the first place.

   2. Aye, everytime I’ve encountered one I’ve asked them ” so what do you believe?” I always get an answer! The answer is always the same brand of new age earth worshiping human tripe.
      I also like asking them if they have faith. They always say no. Then ask them their favorite place to eat. They name some place. Ask them if they want to go there. Sure they do. Then ask them how do they know the place still exists, can’t see the building, can’t smell the food. Sure could drive there and confirm it, sure saw it the other day…just in that moment they have faith it still exists.

      1. No, they don’t have faith in that. They assume it’s still there because they have seen it firsthand at one point in time and they did not receive any further information that something has changed. If challenged they would also admit that it could have closed down between then and now.
         It’s nothing like faith and purposely misusing semantics to prove a point only achieves intellectual dishonesty.

      2. You need to use the”do you even faith bro” question with something non physical. A restaurant is physical. God is non physical. So instead, ask them if they have faith in free will, justice, human value, reason, or good/evil.
         If they believe in any of those unseen non physical things then they have faith. If they behave upon those beliefs and tells others how to behave based on those belief then they are religious in a sense.

         1. Or space and time also intangible

      3. I believe in secular humanism.

         1. I believe someone hasn’t listened to machines of love and grace.

   3. The author states that many people have been divided on whether god exists. That’s false. The vast, vast majority of people throughout all history have agreed there is a god or gods. Atheists are as you say, rare.

      1. Well the vast majority of people are gullible.

10. I haven’t been religious since I was 12, but that doesn’t mean I’m anti-religion. Most people don’t have the time or inclination to ponder the things religion tries to answer so they need an existential shortcut. Religion has to be managed and directed so that it gives people the framework and basic answers they need without making them hate everyone else. That’s the task before us today, and we have to do it without the socialist crap interfering.

11. Was Episcopalian. Needless to say that didn’t work out after they went insane. Decide Christianity can’t be a believe-whatever-you-want lefty hug-fest, it is explicitly supposed to be restrictive and difficult.
    Thought I could escape, hopped over to Anglicanism. Then they went insane too…in exactly the same way.
    Considered catechism. Suddenly, new social justice pope looks like opposite of Urban, basically pushes an inverse-crusade. Only ever hear doctrinal excuses from Catholic conservatives. Nope.
    Well, shit.

    1. I have a similar story, i found Eastern Orthodoxy and found it was the closest to authentic Christianity as anything i have ever found ( and beleive me, I have been in many churches, denominations)

    2. Modern Catholicism isn’t near what it used to be. I remember in the early 90s our catholic priest was way, way stricter than what you’ll find today.

       1. Catholicism is dead.

       2. Now, it’s like, “believe in whatever you like and be whatever you like. Jesus love all people.”
          Shuuuuuuttt uuuuuuppp….

    3. Preach it brother, preach it!!!!
       Raised Methodist. We all know how that turned out. Switched over to Nazarene for awhile. (Incidentally, thought they were nutters.) Tried the mega church route. Couldn’t stomach it past a single service. Tried non-denominational. I’d find more honest, morally upright people (and better looking) at the nearest gay bar. 😉 😉
       Got to Europe and decided to give Catholicism a go. Then, HELLO Mr. Commie Pope! The excuses given for that guy’s stupidity boggle the mind. Inverse crusade is right!!
       Last one I haven’t tried yet is orthodox. That’s probably next on the list. After that, I think I’m just going to resign myself to being Christian without bothering with -any- church.
       All that said, aside from not being able to find a place to attend… I have no problems on the actual religion end. God does make a way. 🙂

    4. Eastern Orthodoxy is where it is at. It is unashamedly traditional and scoffs at all the excesses and decadences of Catholicism and the like.

    5. It’s not well publicized, but traditional groups within the Vatican are starting to resist Francis’ unofficial declarations concerning gay marriage, abortion, divorce, etc. Just yesterday, I learned that a group of Cardinals is declaring an official “correction of faith” concerning Francis’ statements – this is a historical moment that could redefine the modern Catholic Church.

    6. Come to Laveyan Satanism. Lot of redpill here.
       http://www.churchofsatan.com/eleven-rules-of-earth.php
       http://www.churchofsatan.com/nine-satanic-sins.php

12. OT: Please forgive me for my ignorance on Christian history and theology, but there’s a few questions I’ve always wanted to ask someone knowledgeable on the subject matter.
    As a long-time non-Christian (Sikh) contributor on this site, the general impression I get is that many Christian men are upset that Christianity has been subverted and cucked. Of course, that’s not how it always was.
    The part I don’t understand is surely throughout the two thousand years of Christianity, there’s bound to be lots of male hero’s in Christianity, aren’t there? Why not look up to them and be inspired by them? I’m not saying to pick up a sword just as they did, but having the right mindset of defying all odds and standing for the Truth and prosperity for the tribe, nation and faith.
    In our religion, we have so many and despite the constant assault our faith has come under through various regimes, we still are zealous to stand for the Truth despite the steep uphill battle we face.
    For example, every time I see a picture of Baba Deep Singh Ji, one of our most celebrated martyrs, I get shivers and can barely hold back my tears. At the age of 75 years old rounded up 5,000 Sikh men and fought head-on with the Afghans during a raid when our Holiest shrine (The Golden Temple) was desecrated. He received a semi-fatal blow to his neck and then self-decapitated, not before fulfilling his vows and laying waste to the Afghans and driving out the remaining survivors.
    I understand it’s a different religion but surely you guys have someone similar like that to look up to in Christianity, right? So why not aspire to be like them?
    http://www.badassoftheweek.com/babadeepsingh4.jpg

    1. I think some kinds of Christians see that kind of admiration as idolatry- I believe they are wrong and the poorer for it

       1. Thank you for your reply.
          I can understand and respect the idolatry argument, but I think there’s nothing wrong with drawing inspiration from religious heros. I would say there’s nothing wrong as long as you don’t start worshiping them (we don’t worship them).
          Everyone gets inspiration from somewhere and without inspiration, the younger generation has no one to look up to.

          1. i agree with you completely, but it is a type of thinking that came out of the Reformation 500 years ago and is seldom questioned.

    2. Greatest male hero I know from the bible is Cyrus and he was Persian. I feel like most Christians who frequent this site are American or European and would prefer a hero of the same. If they want that they should look within nordic paganism, germanic myth, roman/greek myth.

       1. Thank you for your reply. I will learn and research more about him.

          1. He was a great man, truly worthy of his title “the great”

    3. The problem is the unfortunate Germanic worship of hierarchy. There are a multitude of Christian patriarchs who were badass men. But if a priest at the front of the congregation says “Honor all women, honor the blessed mother, men bow to women”, the stupid “obey” thing takes hold.
       That’s my hypothesis anyway. I really don’t get it.

       1. Thank you for your reply.
          I guess that’s one thing that would set the two religions apart; we don’t actually have a priestly class.
          It’s really unfortunate when the leaders of the faith aren’t looking out in the best interest of their people.

    4. Most Christian denominations honor various heroes to varying degrees. Protestant denominations have a tendency to neglect these heroes in favor of doctrine and theology (also due to bitterness felt towards Roman Catholics at times). Christianity’s greatest hero and example is Christ himself whom all Christians should strive for, however due to subversion and false teaching spread amongst the churches, so many great heroes are neglected in favor of trying to correct basic doctrine. Many leave after this constant repetition of basic doctrine and are left without knowledge of their heroes, only lamentations on what has happened to the religion of their fathers. So in short, ignorance makes men vulnerable to deception, many Christians fell for deception because they were ignorant and then perpetuated the deception leading to many churches preaching heresy yet proclaiming Christian heritage and identity. The true church, in an attempt to deal with rampant heresy and countering false teachings, often fails to properly teach their followers.
       As a side note Christianity doesn’t really have a priestly caste. Israel does, but the New Testament doesn’t really emphasize class or caste. It does state that those who teach shall be judged more severely.

       1. Thank you for taking the time to write your detailed reply. Of course, the founder of any faith is the gold standard by which all others should aspire to become.
          I have learned much and will dedicate time to learn more about Christianity.

13. The way to see things is like this: just as we as children delighted in keeping an ant colony or a sea monkey collection, the master intelligence is observing all of us. And while we as individuals are painfully simple in comparison to the master intelligence, there is richness and complexity in our interactions just like in the interactions among ants in an an colony.

14. The most complex thing in the known universe – the human brain – can’t even make a self-driving car that doesn’t suicide itself with a city bus yet we are told life itself arose spontaneously though chance.

    1. The most complex thing in the known universe – the human brain – can’t even make a machine that flies. – anonymous person, 1684
       That’s a poor measure to determine man’s weakness before God. God gave us dominion over the physical world. Physical proofs are not valid.
       It all comes back to the soul, and understanding beyond the world.

    2. That’s because those cars were made by either the idiot Musk, or the monumentally idiotic Google.
       Wait till somebody with a brain tackles it. 😉

    3. At least we have some verified evidence for that chance.

15. Materialists claim that life had billions and billions of years to arise. This isn’t true even according to the atheistic narrative. The earliest microbial fossils are about 3.8 billion years old, which means life must have arose almost as soon as the Earth was cool enough for liquid water (it was molten for the first few hundred million years of its existence).

    1. the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

16. If life arose spontaneously, we should see evidence of life everywhere in the Universe: we should see celestial emissions in prime numbers … things like that. The fact that we see no evidence at all of intelligent life beyond Earth is pretty telling.

    1. You expect uniformity of time. That’s an error.
       The universe is old. Drake’s Equation is rather accurate, and can be easily fit into the Christian mindset.

       1. Drake’s Equation says we should see evidence of life elsewhere in the cosmos. Importantly, there should be many civilizations millions or billions of years more advanced than us … they should be capable of “god-like” undertakings such as arranging pulsars pulse in a sequence of prime numbers … something to unmistakably signal their artificiality.

          1. No, it doesn’t. It simply predicts how frequent intelligent life is.
             150 years ago we had a huge civilization, and no radio. Today we use radio only for spacecraft. 100 years from now, who knows?
             There may in fact be a whole slew of folks more advanced than ours. But they may not be using radio any longer.
             Light a fire in Montana, do a blanket smoke signal thing. Tell me who in Germany answers.
             See my point?

          2. According to most values chosen for the parameters in the Drake Equation (number of galaxies, number of stars per galaxy, rate of planetary system formation etc), life should abound. This is not what we see.
             This has prompted some to propose things like the Zoo hypothesis to explain this discrepancy.

          3. Life != radio Life != the methods of communication we use.
             The Aztecs were pretty hip and civilized. The Romans, their contemporaries, had no idea that they existed. No common communication methods.
             That is your error.
             No offense.

          4. != means “does not equal”

          5. We observe the universe across the EM spectrum (IR, radio, microwave, x-ray, gamma). At no wavelength do we see any evidence of ETI.
             No matter how crude our existing technology is, the fundamental rules of physics will remain the same, including things like EM emissions.

          6. ah a fellow coder

          7. Indians observed the sky for smoke signals. Ergo, England didn’t exist in 1300.

          8. Oh what the hell I’ll wade into this.
             Light takes a long time to get from one star to the next. Light used for sending data (ie communication) does in fact degrade. It is entirely possible that we’re surrounded by ET’s but simply haven’t picked up any signals we can identify as containing non-natural data. (Or.. we have and can’t interpret it. There are quite a few extremely weird things that have been picked up.)
             We do know there are quite a few planets that fit in our conception of where “earth-like” planets should be around a star. We know of several planets with some level of oxygen and in zones that would support (we think) liquid water.
             We also don’t know a hell of a whole lot about solar systems in general. We have exactly 1 to look at up close, and we don’t even know that much about that one. 🙂
             I remember when everybody (meaning astronomers) was saying that maybe our solar system was special, and planets just didn’t exist very often around stars. Where are the planets?
             Look now. We’ve got extra-solar planets coming out of our ears.
             The basic thing is: we just don’t know much. We try, but until we can visit even our own system totally, it’s a bunch of educated guessing. 🙂

    2. No, no, no. Life formed in a very, very, specific place & time with very, very, specific conditions like the environment, the molecules in the atmosphere, and the amount of energy available.
       Spontaneous generation is false.

17. The mark of a good artist is that he can paint himself out of his own creation .. a good painter knows not to paint himself into a corner or leave footprints … people ask where is the evidence for a Creator … the Creator made sure not to leave any fingerprints so to speak

    1. His finger prints are all around us. A spring day, a glorious sunrise, a beautiful flowering blossom. God is everywhere.

18. Another issue is that of irreducible complexity. For instance, dolphins ad bats navigate by echolocation / sonar. This requires the ability to transmit, receive, and process. If any is missing, there is no survival advantage, How can all three simultaneously emerge?

    1. Evolutionary forces causing similar, although unconnected, changes.
       Lizards had five fingers, including a thumb. Even your normal Bearded Dragon has that. Because many reptiles did at one time.
       Keep in mind, I’m at least as theist as you. No, I’m at least as Christian as you.

       1. No transition fossils have ever been found.
          Things that are held up as transitional species – such as the lungfish – were not transitional species at all but rather their own complete species. The lungfish was perfectly fitted for climbing from tide pool to tide pool on its stubby little fins.
          If evolution is a gradual process, then there should exist a continuum of transitional species between species A and species B. Therefore, these transitional species should have outnumbered the progenitor and descendant species.
          And by transitional species, I mean the bastardized abominations replete with mutations and features not conferring any evolutionary advantage (irreducible complexity).

          1. Are you arguing for evolution without God?
             Existing transitional species is not even in consideration. When you die out due to lack of ability, you die.

          2. I am arguing against evolution as a mechanism for speciation.

          3. If humans have a distant hominid ancestor, then it stands to reason there existed a continuum of inter-species transitional hominids (between A and B). This begs the question: at what point was the transitional lifeform human? At 30,000 generations but not at 29,999 generations?
             We hear of distant cousins on the family tree or other hominid species, but we find no evidence for these transitional species.

          4. Stop arguing for proof.
             Just a hint.

          5. Go on talkorigins.org

19. It’s simple maths! 1+1=2. Simple comes before complex. Saying there’s an inherently sophisticated, omnipotent, omniscient being that created everything is like saying 4+1=2. All the Abrahamic religions are just feeble attempts to explain nature, usually by anthropromorphizing mundane things, by a bunch of semi-illiterate goat herders in the bronze age, who’s fragile mortality made them put undue reverence into desert myths. I used to be Presbyterian then read the Bible critically. That ‘god’ character was a real nasty piece of work who changed attitudes faster than a woman! One minute he was all loving and happy, the next he was ordering the slaughter of infants, turning people into stone for having the temerity of looking over their shoulder. And all of this based on a book that starts off with naughty forbidden fruit from magical trees that a talking snake suggested to a woman who was made out of a rib from a guy who was made out of dust may be tasty to eat. A bit later a jewish carpenter does a party trick with some loaves and fishes, does a bit of surfing, goes to a massive party, gets utterly, utterly wasted and wakes up three days later with no memory of his homies hoisting him up a flag pole outside the local cop shop. The wee sneaky bast*rd Judas shopped him to the cops as he was beta male pri*k who desperately wanted to sh*g Mary Magdalene and he took the chance to get JC out of the way. True fact.

    1. but muh billions of years
       but muh black smokers
       but muh panspermia
       but muh harold-urey experiment
       lolz

       1. Turns out, in the end, we’re on the same team.
          All Glory to God.

    2. OK, no worries.
       What happened 0.0001 seconds before the Big Bang?

       1. What has cosmology got to do with religion?

          1. Well, something had to make it.
             If you’re not into beginning of reality creationism, then that’s cool.

          2. What does that even mean?^^

          3. If you have the answer to it, spill it out. What is it? Read your first post.

          4. My first post points out that everything starts simple then becomes complex. All life, everything we have observed, is the same, simple before complex. You mention ‘The Big Bang’ like some sort of foil….when it’s not. Even the terminology ‘Big Bang’ is crude, as it was more a rapid expansion of gases from a smaller point ad infintum. Before Christianity there was Judaism, before Judaism there was Paganism, before Paganism, Animal Worship. Simple before complex. Religion has zero clue about the origins of the Universe, but the branch of scientific study known as ‘cosmology’ has a far better understanding. Who would you believe?

          5. Interestingly, the term “Big Bang” was coined by Fred Hoyle, who rejected the idea of it.

          6. But as for an ‘answer’, I have no idea what came .0001 before the beginning of the understood Universe, but I wager I have a far better idea than religious fairytales written 3500 years ago.

          7. I wager you don’t.

          8. I have the ability to draw on the sum total of the learnings of very intelligent men, and the calculations of super computers to at least point me in the right direction. You?

          9. I have the ability to say that in the end, I don’t know. And…neither do you.
             I cede all in the physical world to science. All of it. It’s yours.
             But you can’t tell me what happened 0.00001 second before the Big Bang. Ever.
             I’m comfortable with not assuming I’m all powerful in knowledge and never will be.
             You?

          10. What happened before it started?

          11. Never said I was all powerful in knowledge, I’m saying that through physical evidence and reasoned logic, combined with drawing on the sum total of the learnings of very intelligent men and calculations by supremely powerful supercomputers I may have more insight in what happened 000.1 second before the rapid expansion of gases at the beginning of the understood universe than someone using a self contradictory religious tome written thousands of years before the invention of electricity might have. Would you not agree?

          12. This is like a character in the Sims trying to entertain the mind of the game designer.

          13. I’m just waiting on him shifting the goalposts again.

          14. Oh, I love that fatal conceit.
              No, you can’t. Before everything burst forth, you have no time, space nor dimension. You can’t measure anything since the requirements of measurement do not yet exist. You have zero way of ever knowing what happened prior to the big bang. Ever. EVER. Without dimensions and time, measurement doesn’t exist.
              You have to prove that something appeared for no reason and exploded for reasons you have no way of ever explaining.
              Sounds kinda…religious.

          15. I think just as a game designer would like the simulated agent to be aware of the nature of its own reality, our Creator wishes us to acknowledge the nature of our reality.

          16. Don’t be the ant dumbly ferrying sugar granules on its back, blind to the child looking down on it through the glass of the ant farm. Be the ant that presses its face against the glass and waves its antennae in acknowledgement of the intelligence watching it.

          17. Time and space are classical concepts, there is no quantum formulation of those concepts. Asking, what was “before” big bang does not make sense because the concept of “time” is meaningless at that stage. At such early epoch the universe need to be described by a quantum theory of gravity, in which the concepts of space and time does not exist as we know it. If we somehow manage to build a quantum theory of space time we could describe the universe at its primordial stage. There are a lot of very smart people trying to formulate a quantum theory of gravity, so maybe in some generations we can have an answer for that.

          18. but muh Planck scale

          19. Great. Tell me what happened before it started.
              All “before it happened” ideas by “very smart people” are speculation without proof. Might as well tell me how many angels were present.

          20. Unfortunately we do not have a theory of quantum gravity and I cannot even comprehend what does it means “before it happened”, the so-called big bang created space but also time. Also, there alternative cosmological scenarios in which the universe is always there, it expands, then contracts and then expands again. There are astronomical observations which are consistent with such alternative scenarios. Also scientific speculation is what developed all the technology that we use, and I think is very different from speculation based on religious ideas which cannot be falsified.

          21. If you were a child with an ant farm, which would you prefer:
              dumb ants blindly going about their lives, carrying sugar granules, ignorant of your existence and your watching eyes
              OR
              ants aware of your presence, that communicate they’re aware of your presence, with a waggle of their abdomen or a wiggling of their antennae … something to communicate their awareness of the nature of their reality.

          22. The big bang is religion.
              A particle appeared out of nowhere and exploded into everything, via forces and reasons we cannot explain. Nothing there that can ever be proved. Ever.
              I’m all about science man. That has nothing to do with my question.

          23. Did you even read my post before launching into that rant?
              “I may have more insight”
              NOT that I KNEW what happened.

          24. Religious? Indeed, sounds like the same bullshit from Answers in genesis. It’s NOT what I said either.

          25. There is a school of thought that suggests we are all merely the outworkings of a computer program in an alien supercomputer which is running an experiment. Still more plausible than Christianity or the other religions though.

          26. An alien super-intelligence would be God. Nobody really thinks of God as a bearded man in the sky.

          27. Yes, I suppose the definition is the key in the end.

          28. Anger doesn’t phase me. You’ve not refuted my claim.

          29. You can’t have insight into a place where there is no such thing as light, time, space nor dimensions. Sorry.

          30. And just as we create simulations of agents that interact with each other, God imbues us with traits and observes the interactions.
              We would define certain agents in a simulation as being successful based on certain criteria eg if they survive or reproduce.
              We are successful if we follow God’s Law. We are unsuccessful if we do not follow it.

          31. I respect if you believe in God, and I think it is an important aspect that make us human. What I’m arguing is that the very premise of God cannot be falsified. You need faith.
              But science is not religion, the big bang is not at the same level of a religious idea, there are observations that point out that our physical theories of the early universe are right, of course we do not know that much, but we have made a lot of progress since the times when we believed the earth was the center of the universe.
              Finally, let me tell you, that the effect of particles appearing from nowhere, or annihilating into nothing has been confirmed thousands of times in particle accelerators. Quantum field theories actually describe those kind of interactions.

          32. What claim exactly? About the ability for conducting measurements before zero point? If you were able to be there, you would be able to measure it. You keep swerving from one thing to another like a true creationist by the way. Kudos to you.

          33. And ergo that would be a place that no ‘god’ could exist in then!

          34. RSF32 used the analogy it was like simple mathematics.
              multiplying zero ad infinitum and somehow producing something is more befitting ‘Big bang theory’

       2. Nothing. If time started with the Big Bang, then there was no time before the Big Bang. Assuming the Big Bang is true, of course.

    3. Those bible stories make much more sense if you research the documentary hypothesis. The contradictions start to make sense, as your faith in it all crumbles like the walls of Jericho . heh

       1. For the wages of sin is death.
          We see that those who violate God’s law (practice homosexuality, fornicate, etc) are prone to all types of STDs and STIs, even cancers.
          The ancients did not have germ theory so they labeled these life-harming acts sin.
          It’s like Newtonian vs Einsteinian explanations of gravity. They’re both accounts of the same phenomenon.

          1. Very good.

          2. Would you apply that same interpretation of god’s law to eating blood and unclean food? Both are considered abominations in the law. the same word used for homosexual acts.
             That is an interesting idea. But it still seems that ancient man was seeking the laws of god through nature, and not pure ‘revelation.’ Thus, mt. Sinai is just a story. Which is fine by me.

    4. You need a bandaid?
       Surely you must have cut yourself on that edge…

20. Despite the lack of evidence for evolution as a mechanism for the creation of different species (speciation), we are told by materialists that it does in fact occur – we just can’t ever observe it – so we must take it on faith. #irony

    1. To be fair, you can’t observe history either except in your lifetime. Does this invalidate history?
       We need to pick better logic.

       1. I would think given the complexity of the human mind and deliberate action and willful intent, it should be possible to demonstrate the creation of at least primitive forms of life – something that can replicate. This hasn’t happened but we are told such an event occurred through sheer chance: radioactive minerals on the shore + tidal pools + lightening strikes etc.

          1. You’re bound to the physical. Stop looking for empirical proof. The Father is not found by any way but faith.

    2. Not sure how I feel about evolution. It really does seem to come from the materialist century; the century of Hegel, which is why the Marxists loved it. Need to do more research and reading on it.

       1. I would say there major issues with the materialist narrative, including the timescale. For instance, materialists tout that with enough time, with billions of years anything is possible. However, the oldest fossils have been dated to 3.8 billion years old. The Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago and was molten for hundreds of millions of years. Life must have arose almost as soon as the earth cooled enough for liquid water to form. Not in billions of years as is often suggested.

          1. From where do you derive your “must”?

       2. Evolution is as real as gravity.

    3. Ask the scientist who show evolution using fruit flies.
       We also have no evidence of “creation” of “The Fall” or the Flood of Noah. We also have no evidence of any of the Jesus claims.

21. God or no god, both are beliefs with no absolute logic backing them up.
    For me I find truths on the nature of man in many faiths. Given my observations with propagandist / liberals / globalist…the ” devil ” showed his hand. I’ll take the invisible man in the sky all day everyday over those fools. Post here the other day on how to debate with liberals…how about the Bible verse on ” eyes that can’t see and ears that can’t hear.”

    1. We can no more conceive of the mind of God than sea monkeys in a jar or ants in ant colony can conceive of our minds and intentions.

       1. Small explaining the large. Reminds me of the time I saw a cat walking around a car sniffing it in random locations. It was funny as hell too me, as if the cat would get a wif of oil or gas…then it’s mind would click ” oh that’s gasoline, wait this is an automobile meow with a mid engine rear drive…..meow.”
          Beyond that I’ve used video games as an example of limited perception. Atari2600 – nes – supernes – PS1 – ect. The limits of each in regard with amounts of colour / channels of sound / whatever. Us being the little biological computer with the above relative limitations of perception.

22. I don’t think it is coincidental that the Bible is basically an allegorical packaging of natural law: that which is life-creating and life-promoting is moral and that which is anti-life is immoral.
    We see a lot of wisdom in the Bible: following God’s law is a blueprint for a long and healthy life. The injunctions against homosexuality and fornication are designed to keep us healthy, save our minds and souls, and allow us to leave a genetic legacy (children). Everything that imperils us our minds, our souls, our bodies, and our legacies is immoral.

    1. The Red Pill truth is that Christianity was never meant to be a religion. Jesus was a Jew and he never said that he was the “son” of God and that he should be worshiped. The term “Christian” was actually a derogatory term used by the Romans to label anyone that hung out with Jesus “Christ”. Jesus said that “another” would come after him. Muslims believe that the “another” was Prophet Muhammad as Muslims believe in Jesus too and don’t believe that he was crucified on the cross, but rather saved by God and would return as the Promised Messiah on the Day of Judgement.
       For political purposes, the Romans accepted Christianity to gain the popular votes of followers of Christ, and even allowed an intersection of their Pagan faith with that of early stage Christianity. Why do people go to church on Sun-days? Because during Roman times, the Pagans worshiped the Sun God and decided to name a day of the week as Sunday for the day for Christians to worship as well. Why do people have Christmas trees? It’s a pagan ritual holding a tree in such high regards. Statues in Church and people bow to it. Christianity is more of a pagan ritual than anything else.
       In present times, Christianity is nothing but a marketing ploy for the Church and its executive members to get rich off of. The bible is a fraud. You want some real bible? Go read the Old Testament then.

       1. “The Red Pill truth is that Christianity was never meant to be a
          religion. Jesus was a Jew and he never said that he was the “son” of God and that he should be worshiped.”
          Huh. Yeah. If anything, he would’ve preached about Judaism and Torah instead of… Christianity.

          1. You guys have no clue. There are numerous Roman letters talking about Jesus. Three histroians of the era come to mind. Philo, Plutarch, and Josephus I think. They all talk about him. They were from just after the era. Which by today’s standard meant they were reading the actual letters of the people involved merely a decade after their passing. IOW, you can’t discount the witness and testimony.
             Jesus did in fact exist. He did in fact claim to be the Son of God. His followers went as far as India, Modern day Russia (called Scythia back then), and perhaps as far as Londinium (London, though it is debated or was).
             Also, Christians were not called Christians until after his death. His followers called it “The Way.”
             These braindead comments about reading the “Real Bible” are just that, braindead. The 27 letters that make up the New Testament heavily reference the Torah (First five books), The greater and lesser prophets, the list books. Repeatedly they did. The writers of the New Testament were in fact Jews. So what Bible do you think they were referencing?
             You’re either hilariously poor trolls, horrifically naïve, or just plain dumb. Don’t care which it is.

          2. I would love for you to show me the evidence that Jesus said that he is the “son of God”.

          3. There is a difference between obvious evidence, like Roman leaders discussing it that corroborate the letters (now called books of the new testament) from apostles to the churches and their eye witness account that anyone with an open mind could accept. Versus that of a closed minded skeptic who could demand lightning strike in front of him, and if it were to do so, still try to “rationalize” away the event. I’m not going to get into a useless debate with one whose more interested in the disagreement, than the actual objective itself.
             Everyone whose ever written about Him in the first couple centuries, for or against, or perhaps indifferent, claimed that He and His adherents claimed He was the Son of God.
             Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant to me.

          4. Um, no. Jesus did out Himself as the Son of God. That’s what got Him killed in the first place. If He just preached Judaism and the Torah, the Pharisees would have appointed Him the new High Priest instead of having the Romans murder Him. They’d have loved that shit.

          5. The 8th Chapter of the book of John is Jesus building up to claiming that he is the son of God, which he explicitly does in John 8:54. Also, at the end of Matthew chapter 26 in an exchange with the high priest he admits to the “accusation” that He is the son of God, which becomes the Proof of “blasphemy” they need to decide to crucify Him.

          6. How can God have a son? lol

          7. Josephus is a fraud. Just about every biblical scholar would say so.

          8. Citation please. LOL. Welcome back troll.

          9. Jesus is presumed to be the man in the fire with Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego. The One David meets on the future temple mount.
             By being born of a human female virgin, he became a Son.

          10. http://www.worldfuturefund.org/History/jesushistory.html
              http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm
              

          11. now want me to read you a page out of harry potter? because the shit sound as stupid as what you just wrote

          12. Don’t care. I’m sure you feel very proud of yourself. At least that makes one. LOL

          13. Interesting. It might take me a while to get back to you as I will have to look into the claims.
              Zeusdagod is just stupid. But thank you for actually giving something worth looking into.

          14. If God is all-powerful then he can do literally anything.
              http://i.imgur.com/adwz5RO.png

       2. You’re a big fucking idiot. Jesus outright called Himself the Son of God, and when He identified Himself as such before the Sanhedrin, that was when they executed Him. In fact, ALL members of Christ’s cult, even the heretics, stressed His Divinity over His humanity. Also, the pagans were more comfortable with Jews than they were with Christians, so no, Christians were not pagans. There was also the fact that Jesus DIED ON SUNDAY, which is why they worship on Sundays. Your lies about Christ show your blue-pill nature when you repeat the same garbage liberals do when they talk about Christmas.

          1. Lmfao – Looks like you’re the blue pill idiot. Go ahead, go worship Jesus then. He’ll “save” you. And SUNday worship has nothing to do with Jesus’s death idiot. Read and get an education instead of following everything your whore of a mother taught you: http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception-Sabbath_change_Bible_sun-worship

          2. Sunday had nothing to do with Jesus’ death. It had everything to do with Jesus’ Resurrection. Duh. Looks like you’re the one who needs a turn on the re-education booths. Good Friday is when we celebrate His death. Easter Sunday is the celebration of Him coming back to life.
             Also, I’m self-taught on religion. What I believe is something I came across, something that I personally accepted.
             And He has saved me more times than you can count. No need to doubt something that has already happened more than once.

          3. Go back to your previous comment where you try to explain to me that Sunday had to do with Jesus’ death. So now you’re changing your stance. So which is it? Caught you in your own fault.

          4. Thank you for bringing it up. It has now been corrected.
             Jesus died on Friday, and He came back on Sunday.

    2. Man is a spiritual animal. Remove Christianity, then veganism, climate change fanatics, feminism and any other ‘I am also a victim identity’ will replace it. In the case of Europe, Islam will also do. Religion is not an option, not even for atheists.
       It’s the same thing with the patriarchy, a very religious and natural order. It is not whether it will come back in the west, It is who will bring it back to the west. Radical Islam or Christianity?

       1. Good point about man as a spiritual animal. Hardline atheists are so foolish to think man can just wrench out religion without some new ideology coming in to fill the vacuum. This is why so many atheists became marxists (essentially a religion), in the 20th century, and why so many are becoming bizarre SJWs and other forms of leftists in the 21st.
          I disagree on the patriarchy point tho. Patriarchy is not “natural”. It is however a learned group social system which enhances group fitness levels and should be fostered for that reason. Calling it natural is a misnomer though.

       2. Religion is a option.

    3. Right the Bible is very red pill. However this could also be interpreted from an atheist perspective that it was just ancient people figuring out the natural laws of what makes a good society, and putting those dictates into the mouth of the ultimate alpha, aka “God”, which may just be a fictional construct for this purpose of adaptive social control.
       I am not atheist, i am agnostic, so I do acknowledge the possibility of your point that indeed God gave man these laws for his own good. However, I think a comparison of world religions throws doubt on this. It may just be entirely human construct fiction for enhancing adaptive group fitness levels.

       1. That would be a shockingly well orchestrated conspiracy unfolding over thousands of years with no one breaking ranks to out them or write against the conspiracy.

    4. Almost every religion uses this same cop out

23. …you are so off on your base it’s not even funny and I’m fairly certain that it’s due to the Church you grew up in. I’m Catholic and have spent quite a bit of time studying this matter and what I’ve been taught has given me a vastly different perspective than what you seemed to come to. Your church seems to focus on an overly literalistic reading of the Bible as well as the temporal and material rewards that the “prosperity gospel” promises and as such they do everything in their power to portray that image by building these gaudy mega churches. Also how do you explain the fact that most of the intelligent thinkers, philosophers, and scientists of all time had to come to the conclusion that a higher power exists? Plato and Aristotle were raised polytheistic yet through dialect reasoning and deduction they came to the conclusion there was one God. Meanwhile Nietzsche who doubted God died insane and alone and Saul Alinsky who praised the devil died of a massive heart attack also alone. Everyone who pushes material nonsense seems to get there’s in time. You want a good perspective on Christianity read “a father who keeps his promises”, also “a purpose driven life” and “fear and trembling”. None of the morals the Bible has taught are wrong. Homosexuality, fornication, uppity shrewish women, unregulated multiculturalism (like the Israelites cavorting with those pagans just like the liberals want us to do with the muslims who support Sharia law) and a lack of faith are all the hallmarks of a dying civilization as the Bible warned us. Sure some of the miracles can only be taken on faith but it doesn’t reduce the value of the lessons the religion teaches.

24. 100-200 billion galaxies in the Universe. Something took a big crap. I believe in God; religion created by man is not god. When you pray to god, your hoping he doesn’t take a big dump on you. When you take religion, to twist into some bizarre personal reality- that’s when things get f’ up. Who the heck knows the will of a god or how people are made. You have some sense of morality but even that is suspect as to being the “will”; so you go what the people before you said- hence- a bible. In the end, you will die and another generation will take your place.

25. Pick up a copy of the book, “The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold”, by Acharya S. Unless you are the most bullheaded dufus on the planet, you’ll never look at religion the same way again, even if you only read the first 60 or 70 pages. Organized religion is Santa Claus for adults, IMHO.
    You can read a preview of the book right here –
    https://www.scribd.com/book/267370571/The-Christ-Conspiracy-The-Greatest-Story-Ever-Sold

    1. I really can’t believe any of that nonsense coming from that side of the argument, and I’ve read many of those kinds of books: and I’m not even a believer. It’s just simply bad history. There was a historical Jesus. He probably didn’t raise from the dead, but he did exist. since the dead sea scrolls have been found, all those ideas have been proven false. There were many ideas in first century Judaism of a son of man, of a resurrection, even a christ king.
       Sure these ideas might of come from different sources or cultures, but it wasn’t something the 3rd century church just made up.

       1. I appreciate the fact that you feel that way, and I am content with the fact that you do.

    2. Acharyra S and that whole ‘Zeitgeist’ movement is a steaming pile of shit. Be careful where or who you’re getting your info from…

26. Apologies if this isn’t totally cogent. Churches/temples/mosques are amazing social centers and create a sense of belonging. They’ve also been a boon to architecture, music, art, etc. Religion is also linked to Nationalism and culture. What would be the point of a non-Desi person becoming a Hindu?
    Islam, especially, is obviously a bunch of ideas from Christianity, Judaism, Semitic Paganism, and Zoroastrianism tossed in a blender that was contrived to unite the Arab tribes and turn their conquered subjects into good little wannabe Arabs(A Quran that isn’t in Arabic isn’t “real”, FFS). Only peoples with very strong senses of identity(Persians, Berbers) or geographic protection(Armenia) survived the mass-Arabization of the MENA region and no one was unscathed. It’s like a virus.
    I think it’s okay if scientists and rulers are (privately) Atheists but in common people it just creates a lacuna that gets filled by hedonism, cults, et cetera. Islam does not take no for an answer and needs to be met with indigenous religion – Christianity in Europe, Hinduism in India, Buddhism in Myanmar, etc. Ergo, arguments about who is “right” are besides the point. The Christian God, if he’s up there, should understand that South Asia depends on Hinduism and Buddhism to keep the Islamic hordes at bay.
    Educated people view religion very differently than the hoi polloi and I don’t feel Christianity in particular has come to terms with that. IE, I don’t think many Shintoists literally believe that Japan was created by a god dipping his spear into the ocean. There’s no reason people should be arguing about creationism, et cetera. The literalist and the person who views the church as more of a social center and source of values should share the pews.
    Obviously I have my doubts. I’ll have some thought like “Why didn’t God send The Son to Persia right before Alexander rolled in? You had Monotheistic people waiting for a messiah, the Macedonians would have brought the faith back to Europe and Egypt, and it would’ve quickly reached China and India via trade. Game, set, match. The purported hard-on for the Levant is a strike against Him.” But as a Westerner, Christianity is our best bet and I’m shopping for a church(as tawdry as that sounds).

    1. I hear great things about the Orthodox, but I’ve never attended. Frankly, I’ve been shopping ever since I first moved away from home and have found very little.
       Generally speaking, I can trust the Missouri Synod Lutherans (LCMS). They kicked the Evangelicals (sexual deviant supporting, Bible discarding, woman preaching apostates) out a long time ago, and they’re fairly reliable.
       I forget which of the Presbyterian denominations the exceedingly intelligent teacher R.C. Sproul calls his home, but they’re usually reliable, as well.

    2. It does sound tawdry. To say that you shopping for a fundamental belif system is even more sacrilegious than saying that you are shopping for a wife, because you will at least be in a position to judge your wife continuously after the fact. To do same with church weeks deprive you of the benefits of religion, and you’d probably be better off staying an atheist.

27. I’ve had enough supernatural experiences to know that something exists on the other side. Dunno if it’s “God”, but we definitely go on.

    1. “I’ve had enough supernatural experiences to know that something exists on the other side. Dunno if it’s “God”, but we definitely go on.”
       My question is: does someone continue even after suicide? And if so, is his hereafter different for that individual as opposed to the afterlife of someone who dies of natural causes?

       1. Haven’t you watched Beetlejuice? Those who kill themselves become civil servants for the dead.

    2. And in a follow up note – found this vid on human consciousness interesting – science suggesting there is some kind of afterlife:
       

    3. Care to elaborate?

       1. Bottles of olive oil falling over by themselves in my kitchen
          Flashes of white light
          Orange globes of energy in my coat closet
          Imaginary doors slamming in my ear
          Cold spots in the house
          Silver “coins” that floated around the room
          Feeling of attack, elevated heart rate, dizziness
          AND
          A psychic who told me in concrete detail about two dead people in my life — hair color, eye color, ethnicity, personal characteristics, jobs, etc. Uncanny detail. Both of the spirits also told her about my future divorce, which didn’t happen for two more years.

          1. Sounds like you might be haunted, possibly by a demon. I recoomend having your house exorcised by a priest, or at the very least blessed.

          2. I don’t live in that place anymore. I moved thousands of miles away. No more problems.

          3. Get off the drugs.

28. We’re hard-wired for worship: if you’re not worshipping a Supreme Being and following His laws, you’ll be worshipping and (wittingly or no) serving lesser gods.

29. Strangely I agree with creationism but at the same time don’t believe in an afterlife.
    I look at an elderly person with Alzheimer’s whose mind is gone, how can they be ‘judged’ if their mind is gone?
    They say retards to go limbo in eternal bliss because they can’t really choose anything right? So how is that any different from a senile elderly person whose mind is also gone?

    1. You’re confusing the mind for the soul.

       1. Then why are down syndrome people sent to limbo for eternity? Their mind is gone and incapable of making decisions, therefore their soul goes to limbo (aurelius himself told me this). So how is that any different from an elderly person whose mind is also gone? They are linked.

          1. Who says they are?
             Man?
             The afterlife deals with souls, not human conditions. These are different.

          2. The choices you make with your mind determine your soul tho, correct?

          3. Not if you can’t make choices. Hence why children are favored by the Lord.

          4. Theologies such as heaven and hell are extremely ambiguous. I wouldn’t loose any sleep over it. I’m not counting on any of them, certainly not in the literal sense.

          5. “”If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” – Matthew 18:6

          6. …..Then what about elderly people who can’t even remember anyone’s name? That’s my point – how could you hold them accountable too? They can’t remember shit. Mentally they are like small children.

          7. Humanity is mentally like small children. “If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” – Matthew 18:6

          8. Souls, not minds.

30. A god doesn’t necessarily solve the problems traditional theists want it to solve. These guys have selfish wish lists for their god: They want a god to give them meaning, purpose, moral guidance, an afterlife and a guarantee of ultimate justice. They might as well top off their lists by asking for a pony.
    Yet a logically possible god doesn’t have to oblige us in any way.
    As for Christianity, it doesn’t make sense even given its own assumptions. Orthodox Christian theology holds that god created satan, and then satan rebelled against god. What would keep this from happening to people who “go to heaven,” whatever that means?
    Or as I tell Christians, why would you want to “go to heaven,” sight unseen? Where do you think satan came from? He might have done us a favor by showing that heaven sucks.

    1. Hi fatherofthree. What’s up dude?

31. The stock answer to all non-believers (no matter the religion in question), is usually, “One must take it on faith.” And I beg to differ. Taking things on faith is the surest way to let the mindfuckers abscond with your last red cent. The truth should be self-evident. God gave us a rational mind. I don’t think he intended us to kick it to the
    curb, most especially when pondering the possibility that a group of men, with power on their minds, twisted his words to set a trap for fools…

    1. I generally agree with this sentiment. If there is a hell, it must be where theology comes from.

       1. I am reminded of that Dennis Diderot quote – “Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” Enough people have died at the hands of the church and the state, over the centuries, to know the true score on that one…

          1. A true king loves his people and is a benevolent and magnanimous monarch to his subjects.

          2. If Jesus was real, where’s his museum…

          3. If Genghis Kahn was real, where’s his museum.?

          4. This is true. But I doubt it’s as many deaths as mankind’s new religion has killed, that is, the religion of liberal democracy, equality and communism. May the burn in hell.

          5. And to be very clear: equality doctrine, democracy, and cultural marxism are the modern religion, the pillars of the new global religion.

          6. This is true sir.

          7. uh, Jesus has a museum, it’s called the Vatican.

          8. True dat.

          9. Jesus performed more miracles and did more alleged feats of magic, than David Copperfield. He was the ultimate rock star. A tad different than Khan there. If half of what has been attributed to him was true, everything he touched (or made, during his “carpentry years”) would be held as a sacred relic, and passed down from generation to generation. Or, more likely still, housed in a central location, like a museum. But logic has no place in religious discussions. We must take it all on faith.

          10. Kahn took over most of the Western world. Hardly different.
              Where’s his museum?
              I take Jesus on full faith. I’m just pointing out the lack of logic in your statement.
              Actually, I think on consideration that we’re in agreement.

          11. sorta like evolution? We can never observe it in practice so we must take that it actually happens on faith

          12. Yeah, exactly like that…or global warming. Or the Big Bang theory. Or the notion that kings love their people…

          13. I define a king as ruler who loves his people. King is a title that doesn’t apply to all rulers. It implies a covenant with the people. Authority and responsibility.

          14. well, he’s got a giant statue. Not that I’m taking sides in this debate, I just think it looks cool

          15. I don’t recall statues being museums.

          16. Dammit, How do I post a pic?

          17. His museum is his massive genetic legacy he left behind.

          18. So then Christ has one too, influentially. Because…Christianity.

          19. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/662d5c27a157f8d9fbded3f42ea11243be3844849848b162d3e3d7ebbd2bd114.png

          20. The standard of proof asked was museums, fwiw.

          21. heh

          22. State-owned or private? 😛

          23. Statue != museum. That was the standard asked.

          24. None of the historians living in Judea at that time wrote about Jesus. In fact, nobody at all wrote about him until about fifty years after his death. The average human lifespan was only forty years in those days, so anyone old enough to see Jesus ( if he existed) was dead by the time the Gospels were written. The Gospels were also written by people (most likely Greeks) who didn’t even know the correct geography of Galilee because they lived elsewhere. The Gospels are written in Greek literary forms and are religious tracts, not historical works.

    2. Why should it be? Because you say so?

    3. Us having a rational mind doesn’t prove God.
       If it does, how so?

32. Self-awareness and mortality is yet another point in favor of the existence of God.
    Self-awareness – consciousness – awareness of one’s uniqueness and own mortality cannot be an evolutionary advantage – in fact it probably presents the worst possible feature that could emerge. The psychological trauma of considering one’s impending demise and doom cannot be explained away as somehow conferring survival advantage.

    1. Our minds are meant to read other people and obtain resources, Both important survival traits. The consciousness part is more of a side effect.
       Kind of like you can read philosophy but after putting it down might go chase pussy. Our primal drives still take precedence.

    2. No. You are so fucking wrong. Self-awareness comes from evolution.

33. Donovan my man – your honesty and sharpe warnings have been a blessing. Same with your similar blunt true colleague AV Yader.
    I am a little worried for both of you guys. Not that you’re not right, but there’s a transcendant peace you gotta reach and hope you do, yet keeping in mind all you know.
    In this piece 3 comments on why I still believe:
    1. “The bottom line here is that every person has control of their own life”
    Do your best, but basically this isn’t true. It depends on a system that is exceptionally stable for your survival. Some call it prayer, some acceptance, some meditative wisdom. But this release is at the core to allow you to deal with the s-h-i-t
    2. “The Universe had to start somehow”
    Truly a profound thing, that the Hubble telescope allowed our generation. How insignificant we are, yet how ordered things seem on a gargantuan scale. When I doubt a ‘god’ exists – some call it nature admittedly – this slaps me back of the head.
    3. I can’t tell you the hundreds of times where shit could easily have hit the fan – but didn’t. I didn’t exactly ‘pray’ but see #1. I’ve evolved into when the shit threatens, I actually pray for all the people elsewhere in the world that are going through hundred-fold worse shit instead.
    Finally – in some ways as Trump has shone a light on – there are a lot of everyday heroes out there. Hell, we drive and/or fly in deathmobiles amidst all kinds of personalities and mental states every day – yet we’re basically safe.
    Thanks for helping in the female category, but life is better for the whole lot of you and them.

34. Regarding religion or anything else, I think everybody’s entitled to their own opinion, whatever it might be. And whatever it might be, you probably won’t find me policing their thoughts and beliefs here, or admonishing them for holding different viewpoints. I’ll leave the policing to leftists, jingoists, and religious zealots – it’s just not my thing. We’re all demented robots when you break it all down. Myself included. I’m trying to quit, but it’s hard. And you can’t quit being a robot, until you first realize that you are one. Unfortunately, most people never realize they’re machines. Which of course, must be god’s will…

    1. …or you realize that you’re not a robot, must be God’s will…
       It can go either way hoss.

       1. It can go any way, hoss. Any way at all. Multiple ways. Infinity is a huge place. God made it that way.

          1. As I’m fond of quantum mechanics, I can’t help but agree.
             Philosophy and science used to be wed.

    2. Following God’s Law is the way to keep from being demented.
       It is when we know our actions are not in accordance with our beliefs – when we do what we know to be wrong – that we suffer psychologically.
       When our actions and beliefs are in accordance, there is no conflict.
       We are robots when our actions are guided by our base desires, when we are controlled by them.
       We exercise our free will when we make sure our actions are in accordance with our beliefs.

       1. We are robots when we blindly take things on faith. That’s the textbook definition. Programmed. Triggered. Response.

          1. Or, faith is the reaction to a world where goodness is drummed out of men for lack of proof of a good or evil.

          2. Infinite paths, my friend. Infinite paths.

          3. All roads lead to Rome. In the end, Good and Evil mean what they mean.
             We just gotta cross a lot of dusty trails across infinity to get to the truth of the matter.

          4. Yep. Whatever path we take. I can’t find who said it first, but I think Ramakrishna once stated something along the lines of, “Men will know true understanding when science and religion begin to shake hands.”

       2. This is where the phrase the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak comes from

35. I don’t see how a God could judge women. They’re literally programmed to be manipulators for their own survival. Deceit is their nature. It is their advantage to survive.

    1. God works in mysterious ways. I think that’s the stock answer…kinda like how astrophysicists and astronomers use “gravity” to explain everything.

    2. We’re made to fulfill our roles. It’s the fault of men that they forgot their role and empowered the evil of women.

       1. The Bible says that sin is inherited from the father, so Eve might have been the first sinner but was not the originator of sin.
          Adam was – he let Eve make the decision on what to have for dinner 🙂

    3. Men are “programmed” to survive just like women.

36. Self-awareness could never have emerged as a consequence of evolution: self-awareness + mortality would have ensured the trait died out. The ability to be aware of one’s own finite existence causes too much psychological trauma. This points to a Creator.

    1. I have read that idea before, it’s an interesting one. But i’m a theist, so I have no problem with it, but it doesn’t prove that Christianity is right religion. Do you see what I mean?

       1. I think the religion that teaches us to be as close to God as possible is the right one: the one that teaches us to create and preserve life, to respect life as sacred, to control our base desires and channel our energies into higher more noble pursuits.

          1. But a Jew could say the same thing about his religion, and a Muslim as well. And they do.

          2. That the Jewish nation is the only nation selected by God, while all the remaining ones are contemptible and hateful.
             That all property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which consequently is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples. An orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other tribes. He may act contrary to morality, if profitable to himself or to Jews in general.
             A Jew may rob a Goy, he may cheat him over a bill, which should not be perceived by him, otherwise the name of God would become dishonoured.
             Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat, 348

    2. I believe dolphins are aware of death.

       1. they are aware of their finite existences … they are future-oriented and self-aware?

    3. No it doesn’t. That’s fucking stupid.

37. Well, the Vikings scored a touchdown with 25 seconds left tonight, to get within two points of the Cowboys. But they didn’t get the two-point conversion. So Dallas won 17-15, and I took down $200 in profit on the night (see my prediction below, made in a different thread here at ROK, about six hours before the game started). Must have been God’s will that the Vikings covered on the spread. (Heh.)
    I keep making the occasional betting prediction before the games start, just in case anybody is interested in making some money, during a future Vegas get-together. Over my last 11 wagers here at ROK, I am 7-2-2 (two ties; you get your money back on a tie). That’s about the norm for me, 70%-plus winners.
    So just state your interest in this little side trip I’m dreaming up – if you have any interest – and we’ll put something casual together, and completely under the radar, for a group of us ROK-ers, down the road a piece…aloha.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aae94f6e4d657602f94de254d2fee0ffbee4f2f1af15c134911541c7d24f0e36.jpg

    1. I correctly picked all NFL last week except the seahawks fuckup.
       This week I like falcons, chargers, broncos, raiders MLs. What do you like this sunday?

38. I find it ironic I was an atheist when I was a teenager and the more I thought about things, the clearer it became to me that there was a Creator, a Master Intelligence.
    Now it seems I am surrounded by people – particularly women – who are self-proclaimed atheists.

    1. How did you determine there was a “Creator”

39. The atheist / materialist narrative is like Homer’s Night Out with lots of scenes missing and unaccountable gaps:
    

40. You’re almost there man, just shed that last bit of dependence on mysticism and you’ll make it out of the dark gloom of superstition once and for all…and brother, it is awesome!

41. My problems with evolution.
    1. Could the changing of species into new species really have happened? In my head I have a hard time believing so. Often the example of different dogs breeds are given as proof of the variation of genes, and how such drastic changes can take place, say a husky and a poodle. But I don’t know if I buy this.
    Dog breeds have been bred by humans playing god, using the predetermined laws of biology to get the desired outcome, with a certain goal in mind. Not so with so called evolution. Supposedly it’s all random and chance, with no predetermined goal in mind. Or am I missing something here? This question has never been answered for me. Who played the breeder with us humans?
    2. Can evolution really be called a science? It seem more materialistic to me. For example, both a christian and an atheist can both disagree on the possibility of god or not, but both can calculate, test, and retest the laws of gravity, and come to the same conclusions. Science is testable, right here and right now. The same for general biology and medicine etc.
    But with evolution, it seems one’s presuppositions completely change how one will view the data that is before him. For example, there are only a few ways human beings are on this planet. Ether we were created by God, or the gods etc. Or we are here by somewhat of an accident, and have evolved from creature to creature, as the materialist/naturalist would say. Obviously a god or gods could be involved in evolution, but most of it has happened naturally. A third possibility is that we were dropped off by aliens, if so, let us hope they have a likeness of the she-alien from the movie Species. Not likely.
    My point though is this, modern science demands that science has nothing to say about god, because that is a religions matter. But to make this presupposition, completely changes ones view of the data. For example, lets take the fossil record. A creationist or theist, will see a fossil of an apelike skull, and will most likely believe it’s an extinct species of an ape, or maybe another type of early human, or pygmy. Needless to say, no creationist is looking for a missing link, because their presupposition wouldn’t need one.
    Not so for an evolutionist, or atheist, etc. The presupposition is that there is no god, or at the very least, god has not interfered with creation, a la deist. so, naturally, a naturalist will look at the data completely different. He has to believe in evolution, thus, there has to be missing links, etc. Needless to say. one’s presupposition, will completely change his view of the data. My question is I don’t see this happening with other branches of science. The laws of gravity and other scientific breakthroughs, whether one believes in god or not, doesn’t change how one views the data that is before them.
    Unless I’m missing something, evolution does not seem like a science to me, at least as science has generally been thought of, please correct me if I’m mistaken.

    1. Rightly discerned, to my thinking. Evolution is a question of history and philosophy, not science.
       If evolution takes millenia, as is so often claimed to justify why we don’t see macro-evolution occurring on a daily basis (llamas birthing genetically unique creatures incapable of breeding with their parents’ species), then it cannot be reasonably observed. If it cannot be observed, data cannot be collected. If data cannot be collected, science cannot happen.
       Thus, any arguments for or against evolution are philosophical by nature, and as philosophical arguments they lack the reliability of science. This is why we can have different interpretations of the fossil record – if we could observe how the fossils got there, then we could not debate it.

    2. I’m no biologist at all, but a physicist, the thing is that a scientific theory cannot be confirmed, instead it has to be falsified. Creationism cannot be falsified because you can always argue that a creator existed well beyond our capabilities of observational data. However, as far as I understand, evolution can be falsified, a particular example I remember is that if we find rabbit fossils with an age of 570 million years, then evolution must be discarded. The reason is that, according to the theory, mammals first appeared 40 million years ago.

       1. It has been my observation that the theory adapts to fit the data rather than being discarded. If we found the rabbit fossil, then it’s not that evolution was wrong but rather that the sample was incorrectly analyzed, or the rock layer was younger than we thought, or that the Tree of Life was wrong.

          1. I think that a serious scientist will accept that his/her theory is wrong when presented with solid experimental evidence. That is what science is about, to get as close to the truth as possible using data. If a theory cannot be falsified then is not science.

          2. The problem is between science as a profession and science as a philosophy and practice. The philosophy and practice of science (scientody) can be proven reliable by philosophy and evidences. The profession, on the other hand, is marred by people who invest their lives and reputations into theories.
             Ancel Keys, the famous nutritionist, espoused theories that have been shown by observational and clinical study to be fallacious. Even the scientists of his day thought it was hooey. But his theories and their offspring have driven nutrition science for more than fifty years. This same problem can be seen wherever professional scientists are found (more’s the pity).

       2. That’s is an interesting thought. But still leaves many questions. I understand you on the god creationist concept, that one can technically make ‘god’ do anything, and thus never have it be falsified. But it seems evolutionist can also do the same with the amount of years they can play with, and since no one can test it, like other science, us mortals just have to take their word for it.

          1. I don’t have enough knowledge of evolution, but if what you say is true, that is, if one can always “fit the data” to make it consistent with the theory, then I agree with you, evolution and creationism are on the same level. However, I’m not completely sure that one can do that with evolution, otherwise, you would have biologists criticizing evolution and proposing new theories.

          2. I would encourage you to look at the various timescales proposed over the years. In some cases, even the planet Earth has been aged to adapt to new discoveries regarding geologic formations, tectonic plates, and evidences against whichever life origin theory happens to be in vogue that decade.
             As to alternative theories, there was the original Panspermia theory (that some alien force infused life into the Earth), and the Intelligent Design theory. While the first has been adapted several times over the years, the second has traction among more biologists than one might think.

          3. I definitely need to read more about evolution in general. I have no problem admitting that. Philosophically is where I find the my hang up.

    3. Ok, first thing, evolution does not disprove the existence of God. Anyone who claims that is an idiot. Scientists don’t say anything of the sort. The only that evolution proves, it’s itself.
       Evolution is actually pretty simple.
       DNA replicates itself. It does it all the time. It’s how cells reproduce and although there are mechanisms that check if that copy is faithful to the original sometimes errors slips through and mutations happen. Now, if that mutation proves to be advantageous to the being that has it, it will increase its chances to survive and reproduce further (and the mutation along with it). Through million of years and successive mutations, what we classify as “new species” is born. It’s not sudden. An ape doesn’t give birth to a human. It gives birth to a slightly less hairy, slightly less hunched over ape.
       Now, for whatever reasons that new ape fits better into its environement because of that mutations and gets to have more offsprings with the same trait. Through generations, more mutations happens and those with the most advantageous one out-reproduce those with the less advantageous mutations. In the war for food and shelter that means that some species go extinct along with their own mutations.
       Whether you agree with it or not, I suggest you watch “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey”
       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos:_A_Spacetime_Odyssey
       It will explain it better than I did.
       As for atheists, most think that God doesn’t exists, but
       most would also admit that they cannot prove it either way. So, one would argue that they should call themselves agnostic, but there is an inherent fallacy in thattoo. The number of things that we cannot prove is absolutely unlimited. Any imaginary creature that you can think of that can avoid our detection for any imaginary reason COULD exist, but we don’t believe they do.
       Let’s use fairies for a comparison. I don’t believe they exist. You probably don’t either. Neither of us can prove they don’t exist though. Should we be agnostic about fairies or do we go about our day
       assuming they don’t exist? I think it’s the latter, even if we are
       intellectually honest enough to say that we could be wrong.
       At the end of the day, an atheist is just a skeptic that doesn’t let what-ifs affect their long or short term behavior.

       1. Thanks for your suggestion, I will have to check that out.

    4. Great comment.
       As a matter of fact, Genesis allows for ‘evolution’ on a small scale – or better ‘variation’ – as it says that animals will breed according to ‘their kind’. While ‘kind’ is nowhere specified in the bible, it clearly shows that there are boundaries on the amount of variation a species can undergo and it is up to science to figure out where those boundaries are.
       As a matter of fact: the dog breeds you are referring to, the fruit flies experiments, Darwin finches, … all these examples are held as a proof of evolution. But scientists fail to see that they start with a dog and still end up with a dog. The fruit flies were still fruit flies after the experiments and the Darwin finches remained finches. Yes the animals look different afterwards, but they still belong to the same species or family. It therefore doesn’t disprove Genesis and certainly doesn’t prove evolution.

       1. My thoughts exactly, though I wouldn’t personally have to fit any kind of creation with Genesis per say. Not sure if I believe in the holiness of that document. But needless to say, imagining new species from existing species is a hard pill to swallow. I need to read more on it.

    5. Evolution takes MILLIONS of years. No human was ever born from a monkey in one generation.
       Evolution isn’t a science, it’s a natural phenomenon like earthquakes or rainbows or supernovas.

       1. “No human was ever born from a monkey in one generation.” I understand that concept, my problem is I have a hard time believing that we came from apes, no matter how long it took for us to get here.
          It also seems that evolutionist use ‘time’ as Christians use ‘god.’ But instead of the christian phrase ‘With god, all things are possible. The Evolutionist will says, with time, all things are possible.

          1. Richard Dawkins says this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ELEUT8Domg
             but we are COUSINS of apes. We come from the SAME ANCESTOR. At some point in time, one individual of that species became an ape, and another individual became a human.
             Even if he did directly come from apes, that would take millions of years.

          2. I’ve seen that video before, interesting stuff. Dawkins always cracks me up, even though he’s often a dick. Especially towards anyone of faith. He’s a fundamentalist atheist for sure.

          3. Care to explain how’s he a dick?

          4. Just how he mocks anyone of any kind of faith, especially Christianity.
             

          5. Not sure, where I stand yet on the evolution theory, but he’s too much for me. I’ll take religion and beautiful culture any day over Marxist/atheist nonsense. But he still cracks me up watching him.

          6. Atheism =/= Marxism at all.

42. Excellent topic for deep discussion, the likes of which we see on this forum.
    I will not throw out the oft-discussed philosophical arguments for God (the misunderstood ontological argument, Pascal’s wager, and the like), but I will attempt to bring up some points I’ve considered over the years.
    In the first place, if Jesus’ miracles were obviously fake, surely the debunkings would have been plentiful. Five thousand men (not counting women and children) could be brought forth in Judea to testify against the miraculous feeding. People in Samaria who saw his miracles could testify. The Roman official whose daughter was healed by Jesus could testify. The big question is why the story was not debunked from the get-go, when the church was pretty much exclusively in Jerusalem.
    Second, I consider the question of understanding God. If it is true that we are made in his image, we are not unlike artificial intelligences crafted by man. The computer can replicate some of the processes of the creators, but they inherently contain less information than their creators (philosophically speaking). A mirror has less information than the room because it is a two-dimensional rendering, and so we have less information than God because we are images of Him. Thus, though we pursue knowledge of Him, we can never attain perfect understanding.
    Third, I consider prayer. The Scriptures say that God is not a man, that he should change his mind. So why pray, knowing that what God wills will come to pass? The answer I come to is that he told us to pray. He answers prayers sometimes with a yes, sometimes with a no, and sometimes with a “not yet”, but what He wills comes to pass. Our prayers are largely for our benefit, to help us understand ourselves and our God better, and somewhat for His (because he is jealous of our attention, love and devotion – not envious, because that is a desire for what is not deserved, but jealous because it is a desire for what is deserved).
    Finally, I consider what I have seen. I do not expect anyone to believe me, but I have consorted with demons and been chastised by God in a very real sense (tactile, audible, visual, and dare I say spiritual senses). This was sufficient to cause an agnostic (as I was for several years) to believe wholly in the God of the Bible.
    These are arguments of importance to me in an irrational, subconscious sense as well as a logical one. As I believe that you become a Christian when God calls you – not a second before or a second later – I do not expect anyone to be persuaded, but I must say it because that is what Jesus commanded in the Scriptures.

    1. It was about a year long process for me to be converted. Faith is like a muscle, it is strengthened as you exercise it. Stop, and it will atrophy.

43. The Christianity the author of the article is criticizing is the squishy, modern Christianity. Traditional Protestant Christianity never said you can take your hands off the wheel and be irresponsible, but instead it kept people responsible (and with the decline of traditional Christianity people are becoming more irresponsible). Also, I never even thought of mega-church “Christians” as Christians at all. They have nothing to do with religion. If a red-pilled man (even an atheist red-piller) looked at traditional (real) Christianity, they’d see a lot of good things in it.

    1. Traditional Christianity encourages us to “test the Scriptures to see if what they say is true.”
       Traditional Christianity encourages us to “be prepared to give a ready defense, in season and out of season.”
       These teachings alone are evidence of the red pill truths in the Bible and the blue pill insanity prevalent in the Western “church” today.

       1. “There’s no Hell, because God loves everyone!”

          1. I read Rob Bell’s “Love Wins.” Not that I paid for it – an idiot preacher lent me his copy.
             I was a more violent person then, so if I could have punched the stupid out of his face I very well might have. Nothing even vaguely theological in the entire text, but it sold like crazy because it was from a megachurch and it espoused an anti-Christian message.

          2. A fitting title for a vacuous generation as ours. “love wins’ what the fuck does that even mean? Not that I have opinion or anything.. think I read part of it, then threw up.

          3. It means that God is love and only love. All that talk about justice, grace, and mercy in the Bible is and always was irrelevant.
             It’s [current year] – we Christians today know better than to believe the faith of our fathers was anything resembling truth. Only our feelings about who God is and what He does or desires matter.

          4. Ah yes, the gospel of the “Feels”
             “non veni pacem mittere, sed gladium”
             They must of forgot that verse.

          5. “One must argue with a heretic as only a true philosopher can argue or thrust your sword into him as far as it will go.”

          6. Where does the Bible say that?

          7. >>>”A fitting title for a vacuous generation as ours. “love wins’ what the fuck does that even mean?”
             For the “MUH FEELZ!” SJW crowd, “love wins” means finding love in another man’s hairy ass!
             John Scalzi is a big fan of being the bottom for the “love wins” seekers.

    2. The very fact that modern Protestant Christianity is not demanding is why numbers are struggling. Naturally, we want to improve ourselves, to become more perfect. If you are not doing that, why bother?

    3. Even so, protestants practically invented radical egalitarianism. While Europe always had a penchant for treating women equally and not keeping slaves, that tendency went way over the edge with the glorious revolution and the protestant ” city on the hill”. On the whole, the only difference between then and the SJWs is that the latter are more detached from reality, just as anyone who players[ any other principle other that humans are self interested is.

    4. The problem I see most is that everyone has an extreme point of view concerning God’s involvement in human affairs.
       Fundamentalist Christians have the mentality that every step you take is preordained and God micromanages every aspect of our lives. God doesn’t live our lives for us and allows us to experience suffering and the consequences of our mistakes.
       Atheists tend to look at the suffering and fallen nature of the world through the context that no loving and all powerful God would allow this. This is an emotional not a logical argument. God allows every single person on the planet to die. Most people come to God through their sufferings and tribulations. Very few people living the easy life of wealth and privilege are concerned with spiritual matters. The idea that God cannot exist because of the reality of death and suffering is only a powerful argument if you believe that this life is all we have and that health, wealth, and comfort make people moral.
       On the topic of miracles, I fail to see why people have trouble believing them. If God created the natural law then surely he can intervene in it. The entire point of miracles is that they are unnatural. If they were common occurrences, we would just write them off as every bit as natural as the existence of gravity. That is not to say every account of a miracle is literally true, only that it is possible. The bible is not a book, it is a library of books. Not all of them are to be taken literally. A final point on miracles is that just because the gospels took place 2,000 years ago, doesn’t mean that people were stupid. Nobody back then thought it was possible to walk on water. They didn’t think that water spontaneously turns into wine either. They knew that dead people didn’t just wake up. Joseph didn’t believe Mary hadn’t slept with another man and it took divine intervention to change his mind.
       The early Christians believed in the divinity of Christ so much that they abandoned their Jewish or Pagan beliefs, left their homes, preached the gospels to every corner of the world, and would sooner be tortured or killed in horrific ways than recant their faith. This is not the behavior of common men. They believed beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christ was the son of God.
       For me, when you add up the natural order and fine tuning of the the universe, the existence of objective morality, the existence of life itself, the historicity of Jesus, and the effect of Christianity across the globe, I find that I don’t have enough faith to be anything but Christian.

    5. If you adhere to an ancient religion with wild unbelievable stories, sorry to tell you but you AREN’T redpilled, one of your eyes is still closed and you are blatantly being ignorant.

    6. Protestants were never traditional. They were the original hippie rebels of Christianity. Only Catholicism is traditional, and even then, Christianity started as a rebellion against the traditional Jewish and pagan mindsets of the first century AD.

44. As a man who grew up atheist, found the red pill and then found God, I would say even if it weren’t true, I am glad I did it.

    1. So you found something (the red pill) which is just truth, but you found God (who hasn’t been proven to be real)?

45. I honestly believe if most people were properly educated in evolution theory they would realize there is no need to explain the universe and our existence with a supernatural power that created everything. Its just a completely unnecessary but understandable explanation before we understood natural selection, physics and our own wired disposition to see patterns in things where there are none.
    However, religion has provided moral frameworks for humanity as a whole throughout history and many social needs are met through congregation and worship. I believe human beings also need ritual for emotional release, tapping into their own inherent inner wisdom and a dialogue with the universe they live their daily lives in. It seems whether there is a God, afterlife or reincarnation, its clear with have an inherent need for these concepts.

46. Excellent article, man.
    The issue I have with Christianity is that it was used as a tool of blue pill indoctrination while I was being raised. The notion of “turn the other cheek for your enemy” crap that my father taught me turned me into a simp who would grow up to never to defend himself.
    And notice how it seems the rules of Christianity would be applied to men and not women.
    As well that Christianity as a tribe has become weak to say the very least. It’s exactly why we see things on television such as Jesus getting peed on with little to no backlash:
    

    1. Nazi Germany twisted Christianity to fit their world view, so has many, many other evil societies. If the SJWs can use it, they will. It has been that way throughout history. Hence, you have hundreds of splinter groups, or brand new religions.
       Christ once said, “By their fruits, ye shall know them”. I think that is the trick, you have to look at the various religions with an open mind and make up your mind on what follows Christ’s teachings the closest.

       1. True, the SS wore belt buckles with “Gott Mit Uns”. There was also the Himmler faction that were very enthusiastic about Teutonic-pagan-hero worship and mysticism. I get really angry when people say Nazism was an atheist movement.

          1. Really?
             http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0573/2101/products/got_mittens_tee1_-_wm2_1024x1024.jpg?v=1450098970

          2. Really! Smartass! 🙂 https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2995ba983443aef318ff8452d805fbb888a7d7ecbcb515184a1e64f8ea5a97fa.jpg

47. I know that at some point up the chain of creation there is an uncaused cause.

    It’s debatable, but let’s roll with it. it remains to be seen if that uncaused cause is a sentient entity, if the creation was purposeful or accidental and lastly if we are an unexpected byproduct rather than the original objectives.
    The universe is huge and there’s a lot of steps to prove that God exists. Much more so to prove that God cares (or even just knows that we are here on this specific speck of dust we call home.)
    One thing I’m releatively certain of, it’s that God does exist, it’s nothing like we believe he (it?) is.

48. There is a book called “the manliness of Christ” (search it on goodreads) written on the end of 19th century, it fights the idea that is the femine christ instead he points that Christ was quite masculine and the idea of the feminine form propagated happened to better suit the demands of old women.

49. If Adam & Eve were the first humans, and all of us are decendant of them… Are not we all just inbreeds? What accounts for the vast differences in racial identities? If believing in Jesus is the only way to “heaven” than what about the many ppl that lived and died before jesus was even around?

    1. Well, there is a version in which Eve was Adam’s third wife.
       The first one was Lilith, who was kicked out of Eden by God. She created her own garden and mated with lot of demons (God kills one thousand of her children everyday, but it’s a small number compared to amount of kids Lilith produces.)
       The second wife was a unnamed virgin created from nothing. Adam saw her being made and was digusted my her uncovered flesh before it was covered by skin. Nobody knows what happened to her. Some thing that she was destroyed by God.

50. Religions have been usefull, and still are.
    On a practical point of view, it’s a way to give structure of the community for a higher goal than personal interest.
    Of course, the ‘priest’ personal interest have greater chance chances to be fulfilled, but the structure remains until it’s challenged by new (Dangerous) ideas.
    This structure is much than belief. It gives strenght, unity, ability to resist, collective ressources…
    The paradox is that entire branches of sciences have been created to prove or to extend religious believes (calculus with the thorah, Occam razor, geometry for Cathedrals etc etc)
    Those very sciences were later the downfall of traditional religion, and, once again, without this ‘ennemy’, they would hardly ever have develloped themselves…
    Western civilisation is Christian. We built ourselves with it and against it. We may say what we want against it, but christiality was a fertile ground that permuted western world to once conquer the world.
    Now, we killed the idea of Father, Heavenly or not. What idea will have the force to unite us as a civilisation (or gives us the same cultural base ?)
    An we are becoming more and more ‘free’ to become simple consumers, whiles new and old ferocious civilisations look at us with lust and hate…

    1. Couldn’t agree more. The debate about God is really a secondary debate. The debate should be about the impact of godlessness on individuals and society.
       I do not believe that the majority of people are able to align thier own moral compass toward the best interest of the group.
       Religion is coming back to Europe. It’s only a question of which religion it will be

       1. Most people can’t be bothered to exercise and if they do they need some faggot spin class teacher guiding them. So I can clearly see why the masses need to be told not to fight and fuck themselves to death.

51. Here is my red pill in this matter: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ortberg/six-surprising-ways-jesus_b_1773225.html

52. Would we believe in the virgin birth in 2016?
    They didn’t believe it at the time.
    Doesn’t prayer negate self discipline?
    The borderline polar opposite point is continuously made in the Bible, so no.
    Was Mary hallucinating?
    Joseph thought so until he started hallucinating. Then the apostles, the prophets before them and 2 millennia of mystics, common Christians, etc,
    What would a DNA test say about Jesus?
    That He was a Middle Eastern Jew and Mary was His mother.
    Is the stumbling block really a lack of imagination (‘I just can’t picture it’)?
    Or alternatively, a lot of imagination (“I imagine we would have debunked it with ScienceTM had it been available”)?
    Or another thought exercise, how would a man fake walking on water in a storm 2000 years ago and then fake his friend walking to him, then sinking then being fine? Or alternatively do you think that Roman soldiers didn’t know what a dead body looked like and ancient Jews couldn’t recognize a live one? Or that the apostles knew it was all lies and died for this lie knowingly when recanting meant safety?
    I cant argue you into faith but let’s be fair.

    1. A big part of my conversion was college physics class. The more natural laws I saw that had to be just so or we couldn’t exist, the more convinced I became that there had to be a divine creator.

       1. Really?

          1. Yup, what do you think is more likely, that all this order in the universe came spontaneously, or there is a creator? Creation of life, laws of gravity, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, etc.. It can’t be just by chance.

          2. I don’t know.
             You need a reason the believe in a creator.
             You not knowing how it happened, and then saying God did it is just a giant argument from ignorance. It’s a fallacy.

          3. If you can come up with a more plausible explanation, I’m all ears.

          4. So you just accept that there’s a god with no evidence because “why not”?
             Well then why don’t you also believe in Ra, and Zeus and Odin, and Vishnu, and unicorns and leprechauns?

    2. virgin birth? when a girl tells me she has been with 10 guys I assume she means 30…in 2016 I don’t even believe in a girl who hasn’t done anal

       1. Want to upvote this but still slightly afraid of lightning.

       2. That’s the thing, Joseph didn’t believe her either. The Bible really isn’t a book for suckers.

          1. No disagreement there. Big biblical scholarship fan here.

53. Whoever was the bitch to mark my comment as spam can suck my big dick
    I thought it’s just leftist media who use censorship

54. There is a world of difference between a Christian and professing believers. Between “the called out” and Churchianity. If you want spiritual confusion by all means look for answers among Churchianity and professing believers.
    The basis of every Christian revival throughout history is the doctrine of justification by faith. This is a simple understanding by a sinner where he or she is aware of their wretched moral depravity by nature and their just condemnation before a perfectly Holy Creator for their transgressions. Seeking the free gift of salvation, and then walking in the path of Jesus, is a faith not a religion.

55. I was an atheist for many, many years, but what’s interesting is that “science” has proven that the power of prayer (or focused intent) is real — it changes outcomes; that entities exist beyond our normal visual perception — both seemingly positive and negative entities; that non-physical entities can be perceived by many other types of animals (cats and dogs, for example); that negative entities (“demons”) can possess or at least gravely harm human beings; that the occult black arts (“voodoo” or “witchcraft”) can negatively impact people — even remotely from great distances; that at least some people have seemingly lived past lives in some form or another; that a human being is actually a hybrid creature — an immortal light being (soul or astral body) within a mortal primate-derived denser physical body. Perhaps both Evolution and Creationism are correct??
    And yes, there are documented people (often called yogis in the Far East) who can perform so-called “miracles” such as levitation, walking on fire / water, not eating for years at a time, separating their light bodies from their “meat suit” (astral traveling), and communicating with other species and life forms. As such, we may not be dealing with something as simplistic as a God / Devil paradigm, but there is sure as hell more out there than “meets the eye” (literally). At the very least, the concept of Good vs. Evil is quite real, and should be obvious to anyone who looks at the world with a Red Pill framework.

    1. I’m gonna need citations for all these scientific findings. Coast to Coast AM doesn’t count.

       1. Ah, no Gundog. I’ll need you to research such material if it resonates with you in order to confirm or refute my statements. It’s entirely up to you, but I’m sure the journey down the rabbit hole will be enlightening if you choose to get off your lazy ass. Sorry, but I’m not a spoon feeder for the mentally handicapped. Been there and done that plenty, but it’s never fruitful. Enjoy yourself, gent!

    2. Prayer has never been tested to work.

56. I think you should listen to this video.
    There is a lot of answers that usually Catholic do not dare to talk about or simply don’t know. Usually they do not address these essential questions.
    Personally it was the video that made me get back to the church, this and other things..
    

57. It is not that miracles look simple with today’s technology, but they were DESCRIBED with simplicity in a simpler time.
    Miracles still happen today. Here is a recent example that I remember: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/christmas-gift-mother-teresa-to-become-an-official-saint-of-the-catholic-ch
    A guy had 8 brain tumors that completely disappeared from night to day. Doctors couldn’t explain that.
    The thing is, in older times, this guy would just be “in bed” and his wife would pray for a saint and he would recover and it would be a miracle, and nowadays we would read a recollection of it and say “it was just a headache”.
    Same thing with old timey miracles.

58. I wonder if at times we don’t get caught up in blaming the mechanism for faults that aren’t its own. It seems from observing the direction many “groups” go to assert a certain control over something which has great meaning and great influence over a population aren’t inherit solely in religion.
    What I mean to say is, I think the same sorts of people are attracted to the potential power certain ideologies gain and can be granted to them.
    For example, does the attitude we see intruding into the manosphere come from the ideas in practice or is it that those ideas are being perverted by some for personal gain?
    At one time Christianity was the most powerful force in the Western world, why wouldn’t that attract a certain type of person?
    And as that influence wanes either by intent (such as with Marxism) or by people simply growing tired of a group of control-freak-holier-than-thous that are using it in authoritarian fashion to submit others to their own whim, we then see those same people (or their ilk) migrate over to other growing influences such as science, for instance.
    Look at the near fanatical and cult-like behavior consistent wherever these types go from SJWs to Christianity to philosophies to the Sciences. I see the same sort of attitude coming out of some atheists that I see coming from the stereotypical modern Christian.

59. I disagree that we have total free will and that everything that happens to you is your fault. Sure, one can take a bunch of extremely stupid decisions like drunk driving or gambling the rent money away (although one might even argue that there is genetic predisposition to such reckless behaviour) but I there are lots of external factors too and the most important one of all is other people and the Social Pecking Order. Some individuals will always be pre-disposed to lead others and you always see a tiered social hierarchy spontaneously shape up in prisons or after natural disasters cause a return of the Law of the Jungle. As someone who usually ends up on the lower end of the scale because of my short stature and not so muscular body I can guarantee you that I’d rather be in solitary confinement in jail than on the yard, where tall black basketball players will mock me while pretend throwing that big rough ball in my direction which leads me to duck and close my eyes. Been there done that (in HS, another one such prison-like environment I truly detested). Some studies have shown that brain signals fire a few milliseconds before you think you were taking a decision which again leads me to question free will.

60. Christianity is truly very unique among all religions, Christ beat death through his Resurrection, no other religious figure claims victory over death.
    Christian churches around the world are going to resemble, to some extent, the culture around them, as “people” make up the churches. You may find a “Mega-Church” in a Mega city like Houston, in a Mega state like Texas, in a mega country like the USA, in contrast you will find poorer smaller churches throughout the rural landscape of the world, can you imagine Joel Osteens church in rural Africa or the Philippines or Vietnam, even rural Iowa?, unlikely. The general lack of morality in American people has permeated many congregations, but the word has stayed the same. Consider this, Christian churches outside of the United States have very little or no pressure to include immoral behavior such as the marring of homosexuals.
    The depravity is from man, not Christianity.

    1. “Christ beat death through his Resurrection, no other religious figure claims victory over death.”
       None? really? You know who would be surprised by this? The Norse god Baldr. Also the Aztex serpent god Quetzalocatl. Oh yeah and Izanami, a goddess who ruled life and death in Japan. But more common place, Adonis is really going to be miffed when he finds out. I mean, he was born of a virgin, died and was reborn long before Christianity. Maybe Dionysus could pour him some win to cheer him up. After all, big D can change water into wine. Bet no other gods can do that. The better get him to do it soon however….he was crucified! Imagine that, crucifying a god. Who would ever think of it. No worries though, after his crucifixion he was resurrected so he can go back to his power of turning water into wine. Whew. To be fair, other gods have been crucified. For instance, Krishna, who was born of a virgin, was also crucified and then resurrected…but that was thousands of years prior to Christ. All of this will really be a shock to poor mithras who had a very, very strange thing happen to him. Mithras, who by the way was born on Dec 25h so have your presents ready, died and was buried in a rock tomb. But don’t be too bad. In three days he was resurrected. All these guys, however, come after Osiris who dies, is chopped into 14 pieces and still returns to the world.
       All this is to say to be careful before imagining that Christ is in any way unique. He is a retelling of a retelling of a retelling of a story that was 3 millennia old at the time of his own birth. This, by the way, in no way takes from his divinity any more than Bon Jour, Guttentag or Buenos Dias don’t in any way mean any more or less than “goodmorning” it is just a different translation so it sounds a little queer on the ear.
       As for churches resembling the people it is comprised of, sure, of course. But those people, if truly are made in the image of god, should be able to reflect god back into his church through the make up. In the end, it is probably a bad thing to judge on things that don’t involve a body count. It’s like Olympic sprinters. All you have to do is worry about running your race. You will find out at the end who won. If you pay attention to everyone else’s race you will lose your focus. If there isn’t a body count then chances are the issue simply isn’t clear cut. Best bet is to live your life and apply your will to your conscience regarding your actions and let others do the same.

       1. You know, I take a view that many may think is nuts, but really makes sense to me. I figure that if all these cultures have the same basic plot regarding the magical deity, with magical powers of converting food, levitating, and rising into the sky (the heavens), I just attribute it to aliens.
          If there is any truth to any of these stories about a bright light coming from the sky, people “ascending into heaven” and things like walking on water, then either we live in a Harry Potter world of magic, or these primitive people were visited by space aliens who had superior technology that they could not accurately understand or explain at the time.
          It may sound strange, but if you assume for the sake of argument that space aliens visited earth over 2,000 years ago, the descriptions of them in religious texts would be very similar to how they are written now. And it seems far more plausible that there is intelligent life somewhere else out there than to believe the fairy tales of the religious texts. And it would explain some of the mysteries like how the pyramids were built which no religion has answered. Plus something like 70%+ of Americans believe aliens have visited earth. Is that really any more strange than thinking a magical deity exists?

          1. I think that that is just as plausible as the stories we are told and just as plausible is that it is a several millennia game of telephone where the “truth” has some nugget in something that happened a long time ago and was embellished and built up, and translated etc etc until finally being codified and sworn as truth. Just as likely it is all a bunch of poppycock that kings use to make sure the filthy peasants don’t go getting all up in arms about nonsense like rights and value and being hungry…ugh….plenty of plausible reasons. To my mind there simply is no valid reason to even bother trying to guess. We will either find out…….or not…….at some point. If we don’t then no big whoop….if we do then we can deal with it like we deal with anything else….figure it out when we have the relevant data. IN the meantime, a good start is to basically not being a total fucking asshole. I think that alone should be enough.

61. Saying miracles are unlikely is practically a truism. So when one does happen, pay attention!
    If you’re confused on whether Christianity is true or not, I recommend “Jesus Among Other Gods” and “Why Jesus?” by Ravi Zacharias. I also recommend Ravi’s sermons found on youtube.

62. Here’s a point of view to consider–2,000 years ago or more, people couldn’t explain things like the sun rising, the seasons changing, or the diversity of life on earth. Their explanation was called “God.” In reality, they were speaking about the universe.
    So, when I say I believe in God, I don’t mean I believe in a mystical creature with supernatural powers; I simply am speaking of the universe and all its wonder. I don’t know exactly how it was created or if there’s a reason for it. But I call this mystery “God”. Whenever I hear someone say “God” I mentally replace it with “the universe” in my mind, and it makes sense.
    In this line of thinking, atheism is illogical–denying the universe itself? The Bible, along with all the other religious texts, is just man’s way of trying to understand the universe.
    However, I also see the cultural value of having different brands of religion, just as we have different fashion, styles, food, etc. That’s what makes each place different and interesting. The three major religions all share the basic underlying philosophy.

    1. Atheism is the rejection of a magical sky daddy.

       1. You’re totally missing the point. It all depends on what your definition of “God” is. By thinking of God as the universe, or the meaning of life, or the unexplained or however you want to define it, you can believe in God but not in magic.

          1. God is defined and named in the Bible Torah and Quran as a divine creator who made us in his image.
             This whole “what you define as God” bullshit is just twisting words and playing with semantics.

          2. To me, the universe *is* the creator of everything around me (and is God). If you believe there is a man in the sky that looks like you, that’s like, your opinion, man.

63. Great post! I have been saying for years that “they can’t all be right” although each claims to be the true religion. At best, 1 is right, or possibly none are right and God is something we haven’t even considered. God may not be a supernatural being at all and could just be a highly evolved being in the universe like they portrayed in that Prometheus movie.
    There is far too much unknown out there in the vast universe to ever truly get the answers religion claims to know. We still don’t understand everything on our own planet, let alone what other mysteries are out there. I think it’s too big to wrap our heads around, hence people insert “well it’s God of course” to make themselves feel better.

64. “The red pill mindset I have knows that if I’m drunk off my ass and I get behind the wheel and wrap my car around a telephone pole, or worse, kill somebody it has nothing to do with ‘God’s will’ and that it’s my responsibility and mine alone.”
    You don’t know whether it has to do with God’s will or not. Thinking that you know the mind of God or that you know God’s plan is a common fallacy of non-believers and neophyte believers. “God’s will” does not necessarily correlate with good things happening (or bad things not happening). Scripture says this over and over and over. This relates to the even more common athiest refrain of “how can a just God allow bad things to happen,” which is itself an ill-informed and even entitled view of God and scripture.
    Similarly, prayer changing things is not guaranteed. Scripture and traditional Christianity teaches that prayer in accordance with God’s will changes things. But the key phrase is in accordance with God’s will. If you pray really hard that your ho girlfriend will turn into a serviceable housewife, you’re doing so because it’s your will/wish/etc. But is it God’s will?
    Some people can accept that and some can’t. I’m not telling you what to believe. But this article makes some assumptions about Christianity that are fundamentally incorrect. Christianity is not a path to earthly happiness. In fact in many cases it is the opposite. But like so many things worth doing, Christianity is based on the long view.
    The entire premise of the religion is submission to the will of God, which is understandably a difficult concept for red pill men to wrap their brains around. But it’s really as simple as that. True Christianity is giving up your earthly desires and living your life as an instrument or a vessel for God’s will. And the only way you will ever know God’s will is by submitting.

    1. You need to copy this and paste it in the comments section of that youtube vid atheists and God-haters have been jerking themselves off over for the past year or so where Stephen Fry calls God to account for everything that is wrong with the world. Do it now.

65. A funny story about religion. This is anecdotal and I can’t claim it is a rule, but it is true. In college the Kneeman was friends with a guy named Rich. We used to play chess, and go to the gym and have lunch together. You know, reg college buddy stuff. He was a bit of a prude and I was, well, I was the kneeman. He would get a kick out of my antics and I would get a kick out of shocking him….including an incident involving making love to a woman wrapped in the gonfalon of our college which I had stolen.
    Why was young Richard such a prude. Well, Richard was a devout catholic. I had known people of all religions at this point, even –and really especially — Catholics but I had never really met any real religious people. Like I knew Catholics and other denominational Christians but they weren’t particularly religious, I knew jews but they weren’t kosher or anything. New York is a largely secular city. Even the religious people are atheists.
    But Richard would pray and cross himself before we are lunch and at first it really took me off guard. He was a virgin and intended to stay that way until marriage. And, in our senior year when we drove down to Virginia for a conference and shared a hotel room near George Mason U, I learned that before bed he really knelt near his bed, made the praying position and prayed. I often wondered what Rich was praying for but at this point I had known him nearly 3 years and the oddness of it passed and he was as good a friend as I had and it was just one of his things which I respected and didn’t bust his chops for. I really learned to admire and respect men of faith through rich. At that conference I had this super cool case that was called the James Bond Martini case that held glasses, bottles, shakers and everything you need for martinis. Even olives. And we were drinking and met some girls. Two girls from a swim team were in our room and we were drinking and clowning around and rich, even drunk, turned down some very easy and very cute snatch.
    Now, I am neither a theist or an atheist…neither am I an agnostic. I call myself apatheist. I simply don’t care if god exists or not. I will say, however, that for Richard God certainly did exist, was real and was something or someone he had a very intimate and personal relationship with.
    The reason I mention this story is to mention this final point. Other than yours truly, Richard was the happiest person I knew in college and even years after. He wound up becoming an attorney and getting married and having kids. I still speak to him maybe once a year, just to check in. He always tells me I would have made a fantastic priest. Father Knee. Can you imagine? HAR! Whatever god is or is not out there in the world, in Richard’s life God is very, very real and has given him a deep sense of meaning, purpose and love. I am not sure if “does god exist” is really even a valid question. I think a lot of the problems stemming from arguments about god mentioned in the above argument could be ended if we just changed the question from “does god exist” to “does god exist for you”
    I don’t know nor do I care if God exists. I can say, however, with a certainty, that for my old buddy Richard God does absolutely exist and is a powerful and positive impact on his life.
    Anyway, that’s my two dimes on the issue.

    1. Cool story. If I could be an all powerful omnipotent being, I would tally all the positives and negatives from religion, balancing stories like yours with all the religious wars and transgressions committed in My name, and determine whether God was a net positive or negative.

       1. I like thinking of things on an individual basis. God plays no role in my life whatsoever to the point that his very existence has no meaning to me, let alone his ontological status. To my old college buddy he was a positive.

    2. I’m stealing “apatheist.”

       1. I have used the term for more than 20 years now. I feel it perfectly describes the position of just not giving a fuck whether or not god exists while, at the same time, not being hostile to those who do.

          1. Yeah, I don’t care at all. Does not affect my life. Unless you are being annoying at a bar, then I’ll argue the other side just to be a dick.

          2. same! lol. I will literally stand in a bar and argue the opposite side of fucking any argument in the world to someone if they are being annoying or not. I remember getting myself into an argument with two drunk hockey fans about which player was better. I had never heard of either player and I sided with the non asshole guy and went full tilt boogie just arguing

          3. I don’t know a whole lot of true believers that like to push their beliefs in a bar. I do know and have seen many atheists who get mighty uppity about their non belief in bars. I find them kind of annoying like vegans………

          4. I am aware that this happens and have seen it online….but I have never seen it in person. As for Vegans, as far as I know I have never actually met one…I mean, I am sure that some of the yoga classes I took had some and maybe some of the yoga chicks I fucked were vegans, but it never seemed to come up.

          5. btw online I have seen it equally between believers and non believers whereas in person I have not seen either do it at all — to be clear

    3. Still harbouring under a delusion though.

66. Jesus Christ was the ultimate red pill neo-masculine hero.
    He was very loving but also he destroyed SJW central Sodom & Gomorrah.
    In end times he comes back and conquers all. Without him people do all sorts of disgusting things absent of morales.

    1. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed in the time of Abraham, before Jesus was born.

       1. and really…that bish looked back for one second and was turned into a pillar of salt…..of fucking salt. I mean, poor Lot and his daughters couldn’t even look back to check it out because who the fuck knows what spice they would have been turned into…paprika? When they finally got away from the cities blowing up and God’s wacky spice rack based sense of humor the three of them had a drink and, sheeeeeiiiiiitttt you don’t even want to fucking know what happened next.

          1. You just reminded me of this song. Awesome lyrics.
             

          2. hilarious.

       2. Jesus is one with the Father and Holy Spirit. He a part of the trinity hence Jesus has been around since time began.

          1. your understanding is severely lacking.
             by your Bible, yes Jesus is part of the trinity. he was not part of that trilogy until he was born though.

          2. False

       3. Yeshua exists outside of creation. He is God; omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and eternal. He is of the omniversal level of being. He always existed

          1. Well isn’t that just too easy? He decrees by fiat, that the laws that apply to everything else he is exempt from. Horse Sh*t.

67. “If a strip club burns to the ground, I don’t believe God ‘rained down fire to punish the heathen sinners’” Neither do most Christians. God no longer interacts with the natural world accept through the human heart.

    1. No Christian should. The end of that began with Elijah. “And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: and after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.”

       1. Thanks for the quote. One of my atheists friends recently told me that the reason he doesn’t believe in God is due to things like earthquakes; either for God creating the earthquake itself, or simply standing by and letting innocent people suffer, it’s the classic argument by the non-believer.
          I believe God only interacts in the natural world via miracles (which are rare) and by speaking to the human heart within. The natural world operate via set laws and anything that happens in the natural world is therefore random, although God wants each of us to be saved before anything bad happens to us and has given us the ability to know him personally, but it’s up to us to respond to the call. God always has an outstretched hand, but it’s our choice if we take the hand or not.

          1. You’re welcome. Rejecting God on the basis of pain is common and understandable, I think. How to believe in a aware, righteous God in the face of starving children? It’s a fair question and shows promise in those souls who genuinely ask it. The redemption of pain is maybe the greatest gift of a true Christian practice. “God always has an outstretched hand, but it’s our choice if we take the hand or not.” Yes, very much so.

68. Interesting article, it is close to the thoughts i have about religion.

69. God is freedom from fear, and compassion for all. In my opinion, if you don’t believe in God, then you haven’t really taken the red pill. Jesus WAS the ultimate red pill — he came to tell the people that Caesar was NOT who they should be worshipping. In other words, Jesus was anti-government worship. He even said something along the lines of “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” which really means not to pay what you do not need to in taxes (something we are obviously doing today).
    I mean if you think about it, Jesus was a dude that got a group of guys together and said: “EVERYONE STOP THINKING THE WAY THEY TELL YOU TO.” And he did it while loving his enemy. And while muhammad’s last words were to curse Christians and Jews, Jesus’s last words were to forgive his enemies!
    Just because we’ve taken the red pill, it does not mean we are greater than God. It means we’ve become more connected with him on a spiritual level.

    1. “Jesus WAS the ultimate red pill”
       nailed it. and no that isnt a terrible pun. Jesus is the ultimate red-pill.

70. The Bible says that when Jesus rose from the dead and appeared before his disciples, most were amazed, “but some doubted.” The ones who did not doubt ended up dying for their faith; they were all martyred. So yeah, I say something miraculous happened. Unless you want to believe in mass delusion.

71. Perhaps one should read Blaise Pascal’s Thoughts (Pensees)…

72. You’re on the same track (and posing some of the very same questions) I got on when I turned forty (I’m now sixty-two).
    I will suggest though, that you consider religions’ “main building blocks” to actually be the desire for knowledge of pre-existence, existence (it is here where morality and rituals enter), and post-existence. Religions, along with all their rituals and theologies, represent varied efforts by men to answer and/or explain these three questions.
    Yes Sir, continue questioning everything! Moreover, don’t even consider accepting any “answer” or explanation unless and until it makes sense!

73. Nothing wrong with hard questions. Good article. People reach the God-conclusion in different ways. I focused first on the philosophical angle and tried to determine if there was anything out there that clearly ruled out a God or that damaged the basic idea of the un-caused cause. Turns out there is not. They nearest they come is the idea of infinite regress,but of course if causality is infinite, nothing could have ever started since all things that come into existence have a beginning, and if nothing could have ever started, then nothing would exist now.
    Once it was clear that there were no sustainable proofs of the non-existence of God, I felt it ok to explore the religion I was raised in. That changed my life. I have felt the presence of God in my life, and even saw some bone fide miraculous stuff. The starting point is prayer and asking for the gift of faith. Good luck.

    1. God is not about believing, it’s about knowing. Your comment here is excellent proof of this.

74. For an article calling itself “A Red-Pill Perspective on the Existence of God”, this was about as blue-pilled as fuck. It would take me forever to say why, but I’ll narrow it down to a few reasons:
    Assumptions about miracles and technology: The fact that you assumed that most Biblical miracles would be disproven by science shows that you are indoctrinated with blue-pill ideas on how science and religion work. Science doesn’t disprove religion any more than Math disproving physics. In fact, the only thing science does is point to how complex life is and how beautiful the universe is, both of which are philosophical building blocks for religion. In fact, if we had the technology back then that we do now, we might even have records of these miracles to pass down. Maybe Jonah would have his Iphone journal recording his time in a whale? Maybe we’d get videos of Jesus walking on water or St. Thomas poking Christ’s injuries from Cavalry? The fact that you automatically reached for the “miracles are all false because science says so!” button shows that you have a very blue-pilled understanding of science and how nature works. If Jesus is God and if God is what He says He is, then He can warp reality to fix His desires, and He can then make these miracles real. That’s what a GOD is. Someone or something that can make the unreal real. Something working through nature isn’t miraculous, something warping nature to its whims is.
    Whining about atheist stereotypes: Yeah, atheists do tend to be screamy. They usually are SJW types fresh off from reading some shit from Dawkins which explains their salty demeanor towards religion and why it’s easy to piss them off. Kind of like you.
    Jesus’ DNA would have been a clone of Mary’s, only male, whereareas the angels were described to be literal, so yes. They are meant to be literal in that part. And don’t tell me “why do we not see them now?” because dollars to doughnuts someone is getting a vision or contacting an angel right now. We just don’t see them in the media because it’s the same as with exorcists: they avoid media on purpose so as to not be hobbled by them.

    1. thanks for this.

75. It can get complicated and depressing
    Protestanstism and western Christianity has become feminist
    Check out orthodoxy or
    Try reading Chesterton and CS Lewis
    The two best Christian writers ever

76. “Am I not in complete control of my own life?”
    No. Leaving aside religion, there are hundreds of people making thousands of decisions every day that directly impact on your life, and in some of those cases there is nothing you can do about it
    On another note, I attended a small Baptist church for a while, and they really did need donations from members to make ends meet. I can’t speak for the mega churches I have never been to, but in smaller towns they aren’t exactly the march of dimes.

77. Anyone that has seen hacksaw ridge would have a very hard time coming away from it not believing that God exists.

    1. Just want this comment to get more notice. Watched the trailer the other day and to say the film looks amazing is an understatement.

Comments are closed.